H. A. CROCKETT, APPELLANT,
v.
H. T. CROCKETT, ET UX., AND HELEN LOUISE JOHNSTONE, ET VIR, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves a dispute over property ownership where the grantor, H. A. Crockett, claimed he conveyed property to his children, H. T. Crockett and Helen Louise Johnstone, in trust and sought its reconveyance. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the deeds were validly delivered and the alleged oral trust agreement was unenforceable.
The court held that the oral agreement to hold the property in trust and reconvey it was unenforceable. The recorded deeds, voluntarily executed and with a recital of consideration and delivery, were deemed legally delivered and effective.
“In this and other jurisdictions having statutes substantially similar to ours, trusts in realty cannot be proved by parol, and hence cannot be enforced against a party who denies the existence of such a trust; nor will oral proof be heard to ingraft an express trust on a conveyance absolute in its terms. . .”
This quote establishes the legal principle that oral trusts in real property are unenforceable under the relevant statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceH. A. Crockett conveyed property to his children, H. T. Crockett and Helen Louise Johnstone, via recorded deeds that recited consideration and deliver…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Express Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
H. T. Crockett, appellee here, complainant below, filed a bill of complaint against Helen Louise Johnstone and D. M. Johnstone, her husband, alleging that the complainant and Helen Louise Johnstone were the owners in fee simple of certain described properties located in St. Lucie County, under and by virtue of a conveyance dated January 30, 1929, from- H. A. Crockett, appellant, the *312deed being of record in St. Lucie County. The bill prayed that the court order a partition of the property between the tenants in common. H. A. Crockett filed a petition for leave to intervene in the partition suit, the petition alleging that the petitioner was the owner of the said properties, which were held in trust for him by H. T. Crockett and Helen Louise Johnstone. The court granted the petition ánd made the intervenor, H. A. Crockett, a party defendant.
In his answer to the bill' of complaint, the intervenor alleged “that he conveyed the said premises to the complainant and the defendant, Helen Louise Johnstone, . . . but says in conveying the said lands he conveyed the same ... to be held in trust for . . . this intervener.” As a counterclaim, the intervener asked the court to find that the said H. T. Crockett and Helen Louise Johnstone were holding the said properties in trust for H. A. Crockett and to decree that they convey the property to him.
The final decree of the chancellor dismissed the counterclaim, decreed that the complainant, H. T. Crockett, and the defendant, Helen Louise Johnstone, were the owners of the property in fee simple and ordered partition. From this final decree, the intervener entered an appeal.
It appears from the record that the intervenor, H. A. Crockett, conveyed the property to H. T. Crockett and Helen Louise Johnstone, but the intervener alleged that the conveyance was without consideration and with the express understanding and agreement that the property was to be held in trust for him and reconveyed to him on demand. The evidence is to the effect that the grantor, H. A. Crockett, voluntarily executed the deeds to the property and had the same recorded, all without the knowledge of his children, the grantees. Where deeds conveying property to the grantor’s children contain a recital of delivery and are recorded, there being no showing of fráud on the *313grantor, there is a legal delivery thereof. International Kaolin Co. v. Vause, 55 Fla. 641, 46 So. 3; Wise v. Wise, 134 Ida. 553, 184 So. 91. The deeds also contain a recital of consideration and were under seal. See Wise v. Wise, supra.
A careful study of the record discloses ample evidence to support the final decree. The deeds were under seal, voluntarily executed, recited consideration, and were recorded by the grantor. The contention of the grantor that the property was deeded by him with the express understanding and agreement that the grantees were to hold it in trust and reconvey it to him on demand is not supported by the evidence, it appearing that the grantees knew nothing of the conveyance until after the deeds were recorded. A promise to reconvey or to hold in trust is an attempt to create an express trust and, if oral, is unenforcible under Section 5664 (3791) C. G. L. 1927. See Croker v. Palm Beach Estates, 94 Fla. 171, 114 So. 225. In Reid v. Barry, 93 Fla. 49, 112 So. 646, the Court states:
“. . . In this and other jurisdictions having statutes substantially similar to ours, trusts in realty cannot be proved by parol, and hence cannot be enforced against a party who denies the existence of such a trust; nor will oral proof be heard to ingraft an express trust on a conveyance absolute in its terms. . .
There is some evidence that a later promise was made by the grantee to reconvey the property, but such a promise made after the acquisition of title to the property does not give rise to a constructive trust, 65 C. J., Sec. 215. Equity will enforce such an oral promise only if it is made at or before the time of the conveyance for the purpose of fraudulently influencing the grantor. 65 C. J., Secs. 35 and 223; Drake v. Thompson, 14 Fed. (2d) 933, cert. de*314nied 47 S. Ct. 337, 273 U. S. 744, 71 L. Ed. 870; Butler v. Watrous, 185 Ala. 130, 64 So. 346.
For the reasons above pointed out, we find no error in the action of the court below and the decree appealed from will be affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Adams, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mollie Rappaport v. Frieda Kalstein, 156 Fla. 722 (Fla. 1946)…that of the grantor and there is no showing that the grantee in any way aided or abetted the fraud. This court is committed to the doctrine that no trust can arise in favor of the person participating in a fraudulent transaction. Crocket v. Crocket, 145 Fla. 311, 199 So. 337. Appellant contends that the promise on the part of appellee that “she would hold the property in trust for him” was sufficient basis on which to predicate a constructive trust, but the authorities are legion which hold that a construc…
-
J. C. Vereen & Sons, Inc. v. City OF Miami, 397 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ed for a period of sixty consecutive months, and (c) he is owner of land adjoining such property or at least one side. First, the issue of consideration.2 The recitation of consideration in a deed raises a presumption thereof, Crockett v. Crockett, 145 Fla. 311, 199 So. 337 (Fla.1940); Wise v. Wise, 134 Fla. 553, 184 So. 91 (Fla.1938), but is open to explanation by parol proof as to actual receipt of the consideration. Florida Moss Products Co. v. Leesburg, 93 Fla. 656, 112 So. 572 (Fla.1927). Where the pa…
-
Willard v. Hallam, 132 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…her mother at the time she received them, such promise was an attempt to create an oral express trust and was unenforceable. See Mills v. Mills, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 298; Wodonos v. Wodonos, Fla., 1952, 62 So. 2d 78; Crockett v. Crockett, 1940, 145 Fla. 311, 199 So. 337; and section 689.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The judgment reason would not necessarily mean that Mrs. Hallam wanted to save the properties for herself; a desire by Mrs. Hallam to salvage some part of what had once been a large estate w…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wise v. Wilba Belle Wise, 134 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1938)
- Int'l Kaolin Co. v. Vause, 55 Fla. 641 (Fla. 1908)
- Bula E. Croker v. Palm Beach Ests., 94 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1927)
- Bank of Montreal v. Beacon Chocolate Co., 273 U.S. 744 (U.S. 1927)
- Henderson Tire & Rubber Co. v. Reeves, 273 U.S. 744 (U.S. 1927)