Hasshagen v. Hasshagen

California Supreme Court Sep 14, 1889 No. No. 12401Published

Before: Works

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish an express trust in land because the plaintiff failed to prove that the trust was created or declared in writing as required by law.

Issues

Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of an express trust in land.
Whether the alleged written declarations of trust satisfied the requirements of the statute of frauds.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There was an entire absence of any evidence to sustain the claim of an express trust, or to support the findings of the court below that there was any such trust.”

“In order to entitle her to recover, it was necessary for her to prove that the trust attempted to be established was created or declared in writing or by operation of law.”

Synopsis

Trust — Conveyance to Defraud - Creditors—Verbal Agreement to Reconvey—Statute of Frauds. —When a conveyance reciting a consideration is made by a debtor-to another for the purpose of hindering and defrauding his creditors,, there is the strongest reason for a strict application of the statute of frauds, and a verbal agreement to reconvey the property will not create an express or resulting trust.

Id.—Written Declaration of Trust—Undelivered Reconveyance — Destruction by Consent: — An- undelivered deed of reconveyance of property conveyed to hinder and defraud creditors is not effective for any purpose; and if its contents are. not proved, and the uncontradicted testimony of the grantee of the original conveyance shows that he finally paid for the property, and the undelivered deed of reconveyance was destroyed by consent of the parties upon a full settlement between them, such deed of reconveyance cannot he-held.to constitute a written declaration of trust.

Id, — Written Evidence of Grantee. — The evidence of the grantee taken down in writing long after the conveyance, and in settlement of the estate of the grantor, admitting a verbal, agreement to reconvey upon condition of payment, of indebtedness, does not constitute a written declaration of trust.

Id. — Written Statement of Account. —A. written statement of account given by the grantee to the widow of the grantor, showing the amounts received by the grantee as rent, and expenditures out of rent, and some payments to the grantor, does not constitute ar written declaration of a trust.

Id. — Enforcement of Trust — Nonsuit—Finding against Evidence.—• When in an action to enforce a trust there is an entire absence of any evidence to show an express or resulting trust, and only evidence of circumstances tending to show a verbal agreement to hold the property in trust, a nonsuit should be granted, and although the evidence of the defendant to explain those circumstances is not satisfactory, a finding of, a. trust from such evidence cannot be sustained.

Works, J. This "action "was brought to declare an express trust in land. The court below found that the conveyance from the plaintiff’s intestate to the defendant “was made without consideration, and on the trust expressed and declared by said John, in writing, that he, .said -John, would hold the premises therein conveyed for and to the use of said ’Louis, and that said Louis might have the same back again, together with all rents issuing therefrom-,'whenever desired by him., said Louis.”

It is contended by the appellants that there was no evidence to support -this finding.

The contention of the respondent is, that the written declaration of 'the trust was established -by,—1. Proof of the making, signing, and acknowledging of a deed of reconveyance at the time the property was conveyed ■to the defendant; 2. By the testimony of the defendant, given in the estate of the deceased, in which he admitted the trust, the testimony being taken down in writing at the "time; 3. A statement of account.

[5171]. The deed referred to, and claimed to have been a written declaration of trust, was not shown to have contained any such declaration. The evidence shows that at the time the deed from the deceased to the defendant for the property in controversy was delivered, a deed from the defendant back to the deceased was signed and acknowledged, but not delivered. The deed, not having been delivered, was not effective for any purpose, but if it had been delivered, its contents were not proved, and we cannot know whether it was an absolute conveyance, a declaration of trust, or what not. Beside, the uncontradicted testimony of the defendant is, that the conveyance from his brother to him was made by the former to avoid litigation with his creditors; that this deed for a reconveyance was made and retained by the defendant; that he afterward paid his brother for the property in full; that he and his brother had a settlement of their affairs; and that the deed, instead of being delivered, was by the mutual consent of the parties destroyed.

We cannot see, therefore, how this deed could be held to constitute a written declaration of a trust.

2. The evidence given by the defendant, and taken down in writing, did not constitute a written declaration of a trust, even if he had admitted therein that there was such a trust. But instead of admitting any such trust, he positively denied it, and asserted that he had paid for the property in full. He did admit that there was a. verbal understanding between him and his brother that the property was to be reconveyed. He says: “We had a verbal understanding that whenever he paid me what he owed, I would deed him the property,” and says: “If paid now, — the money I gave to Louis Hasshagen, — I don’t think I would have any objection to reconveying this property to his heirs.” This evidence had some tendency to show a verbal agreement that the property should be held in trust, but not that such a trust was declared in writing.

Hasshagen v. Hasshagen

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief