Lewis v. Lewis

⁵²⁵ Ubxbb, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. A deed to the appellant and appellee as tenants by the entirety is sought to he reformed, so as to vest the title in the appellant exclusively. The property conveyed by the deed consists of about five acres of improved land in Montgomery County. It is alleged by the appellant that she furnished the whole of the purchase price of $2,500, paid for the property, and that she intended to acquire it for herself individually, but that through the fraud of her husband, or the misappreheiision of the grantor, the deed was made to herself and husband as tenants by the entirety.

The conveyance was by a trustee acting under a decree in proceedings for the sale of the property and division of the proceeds among the heirs of a prior owner. The only witnesses who testified as to the circumstances of the purchase and conveyance were the wife who desires, and the husband who opposes, the reformation of the deed, the trustee who- made the sale, and who prepared and executed the deed, having since died. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant, unaccompanied by her husband, attended the trustee’s sale, made the successful bid for the property, and signed an acknowledgment of purchase in which herself and husband are both named as vendees. The paper thus executed was typewritten, except as to the names of the purchasers, which were inserted with a pencil in a blank space provided for the purpose.

Under the appellant’s signature, which she wrote with a pen, were the words “Eor purchasers,” of which the first was written with a pencil, and the second was in typewriting, except that a pencil had been used to add the final “s.” The testimony of the appellant is that she gave no directions to have her husband joined with her as a purchaser, and that she did not observe the presence of their names in the memorandum of purchase which she executed. It is argued on her behalf that the names may have been inserted, and the other pencil additions made, after the paper was signed. The evidence does not support that theory, and the character of the trustee, who was a reputable member of the- bar, is an assurance that ⁵²⁶ lie conducted the transaction in accordance with what he understood to he the appellant’s real intent. The sale was reported and ratified as having been made to “William T. Lewis and Annie T. Lewis, his wife,” the appellee and appellant, and the deed to them as tenants by the entirety was sent to Mr. Lewis by mail, and was read by Mrs. Lewis, as she admits, immediately upon its receipt.

The delivery of the deed occurred in September, 1911, and the pending’ suit for its reformation was not begun until September, 1920. It was testified by Mrs. Lewis that she did not learn the real effect of the conveyance until she was advised of it by counsel, whom she consulted when her husband filed a bill for divorce against her in August, 1919. But the fact that she and her husband were both named as grantees 'was apparent to her when she examined the deed at the time of its delivery. In July, 1918, she caused the bank account, previously in her name'alone, on which the checks for the purchase price of the property had been drawn, to be so entered as to be subject to either her own or her husband’s order.

After the purchase of the property, they occupied it together until their separation in May, 1919, as a result of marital difficulties. During that period the husband made substantial improvements to the premises at his own expense. According to his testimony, the