Soho v. Wimbrough

Digges, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. . On June 28th, 1923, the appellant, Mary W. Soho, filed in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City a bill of complaint against Bettie Wimbrough, widow, and John D. Wimbrough, defendants, in which the following allegations are made: 1st. That she is the wife of Arist-o M. iSoho of New York City, but that for more than three years prior hereto she has lived in Baltimore City with her mother, Bettie Wimbrough, who is a widow seventy-two years of age, at 836 North Eutaw Street. That on May 7th, 1920, she was living in New York, at which time she was urgently requested by her mother, Bettie Wimibrough, and her brother, John D. Wimbrough, to come at once to Baltimore, as her mother’s health was very bad, that she had become almost totally 'blind, and was. in great need of the care of her only daughter, this complainant.

That in compliance with said request she and her daughters came to Baltimore at once and took charge of her mother, the said Bettie Wimbrough, providing for her necessities in all respects, and doing everything for her which would usually be done by some attendant, and that these services have continued from that time, May, 1920, to the filing of the said bill of complaint. That the defendant, Bettie Wimbrough, owned the property at 836 North Eutaw Street, in fee simple, that said property was of small size and in bad condition; and in addition thereto owned about three thousand dollars of personal property consisting of money in bank, Baltimore City stock, and United States Government bond; that before her said mother had become incapacitated by her physical condi ⁵⁰¹ tion she had rented out rooms in the property belonging' toller on North Eutaw Street, in that way providing for her living expenses; that the appellant finding the said "property in a very bad state of repair determined that it was necessary to install a modern heating plant, electric lights and other improvements, and after consultation with her mother and brother, the defendants, determined she would make said repairs and pay for the same with her own money, with the understanding, however, that the said property, 836 North Eutaw Street, should he hers after her mother’s death, her mother having a life estate therein, and that the personal property amounting to about three thousand dollars, should he the property of her brother, John I). Wimbrongh, after her mother’s death, that the complainant would take complete charge of the North Eutaw Street property, renting out the rooms and applying the money as she saw fit, with the express understanding, however, that, her mother, the said Bettie Wimbrongh, should he provided for and taken care of by the complainant. That the complainant expended over twenty-five hundred dollars of her own money in the installation of said improvements, and that, in conformity with the family agreement, which had been made- by her mother, brother, and herself, who composed the whole family, her mother conveyed the said property, 836 North Eutaw Street, on July 6th, 1920, to .Daniel J. M’eyler, by deed duly recorded among the Land Records of Baltimore City, that on the same day the said Daniel J. Meyler conveyed the said property back to her mother, Bettie Wimbrongh, for life, with remainder to the complainant, which said last mentioned deed was also recorded among the L,and Records of Baltimore City; that in the last mentioned deed it was. provided that the life tenant, Bettie Wimbrongh, should have the benefit of said property and should have the right to sell, mortgage, or dispose of airy of it, and that upon the death of the said Bettie Wimbrough the property, or so- much thereof as had not been disposed of, would go to- the complainant, her heirs and assigns. ⁵⁰² That the complainant for more than three years has to the best of her ability cared for said property, renting the same, and producing sufficient income to support the defendant, Bettie Wimbrough, that she has succeeded in giving her mother a most comfortable home, with nourishing food and has provided for her needs, attending to her at all times and helping even to dress and undress her, and performing services which if rendered by paid attendants would cost much more than the total income from the property, 836 North Eutaw Street.

That the complainant was at all times kind and considerate to her mother, and that she, the complainant, was greatly surprised on May 18th, 1923, to be told by a neighbor that the said property in which she was then living with her mother had been transferred by her mother to Joseph Loeffler,.an attorney, as appeared by the transfer in the papers of May 18th, 1923, and that on the same date the said Joseph Loeffler had conveyed the property back to her mother, in fee simple, without any limitation after her mother’s death to the complainant. That the transfers by her mother, Bettie Wimbrough, to said Loeffler and back to her mother were contrary to the agreement entered into' in 1920, at the time the complainant gave up her residence in New York, and came to Baltimore and took charge of her mother, expending on said property over twenty-five hundred dollars. That her mother had the right to dispose of all said property to a purchaser, or to mortgage the same, the understanding in the family being that these provisions should be put in, in order to provide for the support of the defendant, Bettie Wimbrough, if it should be necessary, and that your complainant was willing to surrender her rights in remainder if her so doing was necessary in order to support her mother, but that the transfers as made were not made in order to take care of any wants of her mother but were made in order to defeat the rights of the complainant in said property. That the property has not been sold or mortgaged to provide for any needs of the defendant, Bet-tie Wimbrough, but has resulted in putting, the said property in her name absolutely, in such a ⁵⁰³ manner as to defeat the rights of the complainant which were solemnly agreed to; and the complainant charges that said action has been the result of a combination between her mother and brother, the said defendants, Bettie Wimbrough and John D. Wimbrough, for the purpose of improperly defeating and putting an end to the rights of your complainant.

That her mother, Bettie Wimbrough, has» already conveyed to the defendant», John D. Wimbrough, her son, the personal property consisting of money, stock and bonds. That the defendant, Bettie Wimbrough, has given the complainant notice to vacate the part of the property she occupies, and has been given notice by her mother’s attorney that unless she does vacate the» property within a reasonable time ejectment would be instituted against her, and on June 27th, 1923, a sign “for rent” was» placed on the said house by the defendants. That the said action of the defendant, Bettie Wimbrough, in disturbing title to the property is in direct conflict with the complainants rights and does her great injustice, that she has demanded of the defendants reimbursement for the expenditures made by her in putting the property in good condition, and that the title to» said property be again transferred in such a manner, that at the death of the defendant, Bettie Wimbrough, it shall beco»me the property of the complainant; but the defendants have entirely refused to make any change in the title, and the offer made by the defendants towards compensating ber for improvements has been entirely inadequate. The bill then prays: 1st.

That the deed dated May 16th, 1921, from Bettie Wimbrough to Joseph Loeffler, transferring title to 836 North Entaw Street to Joseph Loeffler, and the deed of the same' date from Joseph Loeffler to Bettie Wimbrough, conveying the same property, may he declared null and void, that the» defendant, Bettie Wimbrough, may be restrained from transferring said property in any way inconsistent with the rights of the complainant tinder the family agreement made in 1920. ⁵⁰⁴ 2nd. That the defendant, Belfitie Wimbrough, be -restrained from taking any steps toward ejecting the complainant from said property, 836 North Eutaw Street, as threatened by her. 3rd. That the defendant, John D. Wimlbrough, be restrained from combining with his mother, the said Bettie Wimlbrough, in an effort to put an end to the family agreement, which was entered into by the complainant and defendants in 1920, and that the defendant, John D. Wimbrough, be directed to return to said Bettie Wimbrough any property of hers which he has received and which under the family agreement made in 1920 was not to be delivered to the said John D. Wimbrough until the death of his mother, the said Bettie Wimbrough. The bill also contained a prayer for general relief.

The defendants separately answered said bill of complaint. The defendant, Bettie Wimbrough, admits in her said answer that she was stricken with blindness in May, 1920, that the complainant is the wife of Aristo M. 'Soho, and that the complainant has lived with her for the past three years, but denies each and every other allegation contained in the first paragraph of the bill. The said defendant admits the ownership of the property, •836 North Eutaw Street, that she rented rooms therein until afflicted with blindness, that the deeds referred to from herself to Meyler and from Meyler back to herself were executed, but denies each and every other allegation made in the second-paragraph of the bill of complaint. This defendant further alleges in her said answer that she operated the said property as a rooming house for many years prior to May, 1920, enjoying a lucrative income therefrom, from which said income she was able to contribute generously toward the purchase of said property.

That the improvements alleged to have been made by the complainant were not absolutely necesslary, and that the complainant was mainly influenced in making them by the approaching wedding of her daughter, that the defendant objected to the making of the improvements, but her objections were ignored ⁵⁰⁵ and her physical condition was taken advantage of. The said defendant denies emphatically in said answer that there was ever any agreement of any kind or nature which induced the execution of said deeds and that she was mainly influenced in having created a life estate for herself with the full power to sell, mortgage, lease or in any manner dispose of the absolute estate in said property in fee simple or otherwise, or any part thereof, with the remainder to the complainant, in order to avoid orphans’ court expense, in event she died without executing the power contained in the deed from Daniel ,T. Meyler to herself. The said answer denies every allegation contained in paragraph three of the hill of complaint hearing on the treatment and attention lavished on her by the complainant, and alleges that practically since May, 1920, she has daily dressed and undressed herself, made her own bed, assisted the cook, and that what attention she received was largely from the cook. She further alleges that on many occasions she had told the complainant that she desired to change the state of the title to the property, and on M>ay 18th, 1923, upon her return home after the execution of the deeds to and from Loeffler, she informed the complainant fully of the transaction.

That the complainant since May, 1920, .appropriated the entire income from the property, in addition to taking money belonging to the defendant without, in any way accounting to her, and at the same time, with her daughters, has occupied a large portion of the premises, using- all the defendant’s furniture, silver ware, linens, etc. That she, the defendant, Bettie Wimbrough, admits having given her son absolutely certain personal property, and that this was done voluntarily without the slightest influence on the part, of her said son, that she admits she has served notice on the complainant to vacate the part of the property occupied by her, hut the complainant not only refuses to vacate hut persistently interfered, harassed and .annoyed the defendant in her efforts to rent the property, and that the complainant planned to prevent the renting! of the property by this defendant, and in this way deprive her of the income ⁵⁰⁶ she would thereby receive. The said defendant denies every other allegation in the fourth paragraph of the bill, and alleges that her son, instead of assisting her in restoring the absolute estate in said property to herself, had, as a matter of fact, hampered her in so doing. The said defendant further denies that the complainant has any rights in the property in question or that she is entitled to be reimbursed for expenditures made by her without the consent or over the objections made by this defendant, although she made the complainant the offer of fifteen hundred dollars in full settlement of every claim the complainant may have had against her and her property, and this proposition was declined; that the sum of fifteen hundred dollars offered exceeded the aggregate cost of the improvements made by the complainant. The answer of John D. Wimbrough admits that he sent for his sister in May, 1920, when their mother was stricken with blindness, but that this was done without the