Springer v. Springer

Offutt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Reverend Thomas L. Springer, a Presbyterian minister, one of the appellees in this case, with his wife and family, in or about September, 1905, moved into a house, known as 601 East 34th Street in Baltimore, the leasehold ⁴⁶⁷ in which had been conveyed by Clarence W. Homer to- James L. Springer, a son of the appellee®, and one of the appellants, and the appellees have continued to occupy the house since that time. In 1911 the reversion in the property was conveyed to James L. Springer, who- borrowed the money to pay for it on a mortgage to the Institute Perpetual Building and Loan Association, so that after that date the fee simple title to the property was vested in James L. Springer’, subject to a lien of the building association for $2,080. In 1922 Thomas L. Springer demanded that the property, which then stoo-d in the name of his son, James L. Springer, be conveyed to him and his wife, on the ground that James L. Springer held it in trust for them, and, upon the refusal of James L. Springer to convey it to- them, they filed the bill of complaint in this ease, in which they asked that the court decree- that the defendants, James L. Springer and Celen-o Springer, his wife-, be decreed to hold the property in trust for the appellees, and that they be required to convey the property to them subject to a lien in favor of the appellants for $2,126.41 for the balance due o-n a mortgage executed by the appellants on the property which they had paid.

The appellants in their answer denied -that they held the property in trust, and evidence in connection with that issue was taken in open court in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City. At its conclusion that court passed a decree in which it declared that the appellants did hold the property in trust for .the appellees, subject to a lien of $2,634.29, and directing the appellants, upon the receipt of that sum, to convey the property to them, and from that decree this appeal was taken." The first question raised by the appeal is whether James L. S-p-ringer, the appellant, when he acquired the title to the property, held it in trust for the appellees and, as that is a question of mingled law and fact, a consideration of it requires u® to review the evidence relating to it. Thomas L. Springer, one of the appellees, testified that he was in August, 1922, seventy-three years of age; that just before the property in question was purchased, he Was living ⁴⁶⁸ with his family just across the street from it, and that he determined to move from, that place because the owner of it was continually raising the rent, “and it was getting to be so continuous and it was likely to be exorbitant and we tried to buy a place and found .this”; that at that time his family consisted of his wife and seven children, of whom Gordon was the oldest and James the second in age; that the family was supported by “something of an income” which he had and contributions of those of his children who were of age; that when he had determined to move, his attention was called to the fact that the property involved in this suit was for sale, and upon inquiring of the owner concerning it he was referred to the Institute Building and Loan Association, and accordingly he called upon Mr. Charles J. Bouohet, its representative and attorney; that as a result of his negotiations with Mr. Bouchet, acting for himself and his wife, he agreed to buy the property subject to a $95 ground rent for $1,150; that the purchase money, and the incidental expenses amounted to $1,184.80 and that that sum was supplied from the following sources: the building association advanced seven hundred and eighty or ninety dollars, secured by a first mortgage; Mrs. Springer supplied $255; James. L. Springer, $100, and Thomas L. Springer provided the balance needed to make up the $1,184.80; that when the sale was consummated, instead of having the property conveyed to him, he had the title put in the name of his son, J ames L. Springer.

When asked why he did that the witness said: “Eor strictly prudential reasons, physically based. My eyes had been giving me a great deal of trouble and I was under'the apprehension I was having a cataract and would have to go under an operation or lose an eye, which would incapacitate me for my work very largely and, thus prevent any definite settled revenue coming into the home, and for that reason, James being the next oldest, I put it in James’ name because he was earning something of an income and that he would be the one standing responsible to meet these things that demanded ⁴⁶⁹ a man’s presence in the building association and negotiations like that that a woman could not take up. so readily and for that reason I had it in his name with the expectation and understanding in the family that in case of the operations coming out successfully or my health being such that the deed would be put in my name — I mean the deed put in my name.” At that time his oldest son, Gordon, wa,s> about to be married and in fact a week later he was married and went to live in his own home. James lived at home for two or three years after that and until his marriage, when he too moved away. That in 1895, he learned that a Mrs. Patterson, who owned the ground rent, desired to dispose of it, and he arranged through Mr. Bouohet to purchase it, and to have the purchase financed by the building and loan association which held a. mortgage on the leasehold, and in carrying out that arrangement, the property was conveyed to his son,, James L. Springer, who held the leasehold, and he then executed a mortgage on the fee simple property to the building association, covering the balance due on the mortgage on the heasehold, which was released, the purchase price of the ground rent and the incidental expenses amounting in all to $2,080; and that in 1915 that mortgage was released and a new mortgage to the same association for $2,210 executed to cover the balance due under the mortgage so. released and an assessment for street paving.

He further testified that from the time he moved into- the property in 1905 he paid the water rent, ground rent, taxes and insurance, and for all needed repairs to the house, and that in the- year prior to that in which he testified he had spent twelve hundred dollars on repairs and improvements, to. the. house. In addition to these payments he further testified that he had from time to time made payments on the principal due under the several mortgages on the- property as well as the interest accruing on them. Mrs. Mary G. B. Springer, the mother of James, testified that when the property was. bought iu 1905, she had contributed $255 to the purchase price and that her son, James, had furnished $100. She also testified that no- part of that ⁴⁷⁰ money had ever been returned to her, and she denied that she had loaned it to James.

On erosa-examination she was shown a paper purporting to he a receipt for interest on that loan signed by her, hut she was unable to say after examining it that she had signed it. Cortland B. Springer, a brother of James, testified that he was present at various times at “family gatherings” at which James was also present, when it was decided his father should purchase a home for the family, and that he himself loaned his mother $50 on account of the purchase money. Mrs. Mary Springer Gross-, a sister, gave the following testimony: “Q. Can you give us any conversation spoken of in reference to the purchase of this property of which Mr. James L. Springer was present? A. Ton mean I am to tell my story in my own words ? * * * I remember distinctly that we as a family knew that there must be some change made in our home relationship and my father had reached the period in life that he was becoming too old to take a regular church.

In all probability his eye sight ivas failing and he had not reached the period of retirement for our church. We were at a crucial time, -a time that meant each one of us had to do our best to keep the home life going and we had to malee some plan by which we could all keep our home and our family life intact and after a great many conferences, I do not mean conferences where they were called to order by prayer, but I mean as a family, we had family conflabs of what we were going to do in the future and instead of paying the rent continuously, the wise thing was to buy a home and all contribute to that, and we found, as neighbors avíII do, that our neighbor across the street was moving and his place was for sale and my father at once inquired as to the terms of the sale, the price, etc., and we found that we could by all clubbing together’ -and all bearing our share of the burden we could buy this property which should he done * * *. My father paid for the h-ou-se and my mother and my brother, James, put some into it. We all paid for the house * * *.

I was in business myself on a very small salary, but in order to make it possible for p-apa to make payment on it ⁴⁷¹ and do liis share I took over his share in the upkeep of the house to ran the household expenses so his. money could go into the payment of the house. * * * Do you know anything about the contributions that were actually made? When I sa.y contributions, I mean contributions that have been referred to in the1 testimony of the witnesses, the two hundred and fifty-five dollars in particular that has been testified. Do you know anything of your own personal knowledge about that? * * * A. I know that my mother had this money in bank and that she received it just a little while previously to the time we bought the house .and I know that, she put it into the property. She herself contributed $255, which was at that time in hank.” Charles J. Bouehet, Esq., a member of the Baltimore bar, testified that he had no definite recollection of who paid him the cash when the property was conveyed to James Ia Springer, but that Thomas L. Springer was. present, and he it was who almost invariably paid the building association dues and interest, although he. said the association actually looked to James L. Springer as the holder of the legal title for payment, and that they felt the more secure because they knew he owned another house on St. Paul Street.

James L. Springer in Ms own behalf gave this, version of the transaction, which differed in every essential particular from that given by his father. He said: “The fact that the rent had been raised once and was threatened to- be raised again and the fact that the property was for sale at 601 Windemere Avenue; my older brother was to be married on October 7th, which he was, I felt it threw an additional burden on me to help support and keep the family together. I at that time was employed by the express company and went home to. lunch and I was quite worried and concerned for a long time and in passing through the alley which led up to this 601 Windemere Avenue this sign struck me in the face every noon and I finally conceived the idea of buying it. * * * I meditated over it for several days. There was; quite a cloud in my way, because I had resigned my position to take effect ⁴⁷² October 1st, 1905, and go- into- the mail service as- a substitute. * * * I conceived the plan and suggested it to my father, I asked him to- go and see Mr. Clinton Watts, who was the agent for the property for Mr. Homer, which he did, and found out the price and it could be financed and reported to me that it could be done.

I then advised him to go ahead and see what he co-uld do and I would sign the papers. There was a clear -and distinct understanding that the property was to be mine and that in lieu of rent they were to keep- up the expenses until such time as the property was p-aid for and then they could live there -the rest of their lives paying the taxes and water rent.” He further testified that he had borrowed the $2-55 from his mother and he had paid her back practically all of it, and when asked “whose money was given in exchange for the pro-perty ?” he said: “Mine. * * * One hundred dollars -of it and- some odd cents of my own money. Two hundred and fifty-five dollars of it I borrowed from my mother on my personal responsibility, giving her I think a note •oi” a statement- to the effect that I would repay with interest at six per cent,” and he also said that he had paid the expenses incident to the transaction. In referring to the mortgage given to- secure money to pay for the paving-assessment he said: “Win-demere Avenue, 34th Street, had been paved and the York Road had been paved and necessitated the placing of concrete walks around the front and side of his property leading up- to the church also.

The work was done and my father hadn’t the money to pay for it and the contractor or builder said suit would he brought and this money was raised in this way to avoid suit.” He also- said that he had paid off the last mortgage given on the property. He further testified that in April, 1922, a demand was made upon him to- transfer the property to his father1, and that, after an interview with his father in reference to that demand, he wrote him the following letter: “Dear Sir: “I hereby notify yon to send your weekly payments of rent on property No. 601 East 34th Street, Balti ⁴⁷³ more, Maryland, amounting to $9.80 directly to me at No. 2526 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, instead of to the Institute Perpetual Building and Loan Association, beginning on Monday, July 17, 1922. I beg to call to your attention that there is to date a default in your weekly payments of rent amounting to $2,125.00, an immediate payment of which is hereby demanded. “Very truly yours, “James L. Springer.” Mrs. Oeleno J. Springer testified that she knew that her husband, James L. Springer, bad received a letter from bis father requesting him to convey the property to Harry Springer, his brother. James L. Springer, with the permission of the court, was recalled and testified that he had paid all expenses on the property including taxes and water rent, and also made payments for repairs .and improvements from 1905 to 1909, and in the course of his testimony he produced a “memorandum” of his expenditures.

When examined about the “memorandum” he gave this testimony: “Q. What is that memorandum? A. That is a memorandum of expenses paid on the property of repairs and improvements and taxes and water rent. Q. When was that memorandum made by you ? A. This was made by me from my book just for this purpose recently. * * * When were the entries made in your book ?

A. At the time the expenses were made. Q. And made in your own handwriting? A. Made in my own handwriting, showing the dates.” Cross-examined as to this memorandum he testified: “Now do-1 understand that these payments were made in the year 1909 ? A. No’.

Q. And that you paid the ground rent from 1905 to 1909 ? A. I did not say anything about the ground rent, sir. Q. Well, isn’t that this item? A. That is on that item of the memorandum of the account of ground rent paid, hut I said nothing about ground rent.

As a matter of fact I did pay some of the ground rent before. Q. Then you offer a paper here taken from your own hooks and the first item is ground rent, ⁴⁷⁴ $427.50 ? A. The ground rent is not taken from my memorandum hook. * * * Q. I know, but for the purpose of showing that your testimony is correct and that you are not relying entirely on your memory you produce a memorandum which you say was taken from your books? A. I did not say the memorandum as to’ ground rents was taken from, my books.” This is substantially all of the testimony which bears upon the question under consideration.

Its effect naturally depends upon the credibility of the several witnesses who gave it. Tames L. Springer’s version of the transaction depends almost entirely upon his own statement, and is in direct conflict with that given by his father. The learned judge who decided the case in the lower court elected to believe the story told by the father and in that conclusion we fully concur. Tames¡, the son, was contradicted by his father, as to the circumstances of the transaction and the payment, of current expenses on the property, and by his mother, as to the $255 which she advanced on account of the purchase of the property, and by his sister and his brother as to the circumstances under which the family determined to buy the property, and, it may be inferred, by himself as to the memorandum and book containing a record of payments which he claimed to have made on account of the property, while his father was corroborated, in most of the essential details of his narrative as to the purchase of and payment for the property, by members of his family, and by the attorney who represented the building association which financed the purchase.

We will therefore deal with the case upon the assumption that the history of the purchase of the property given by Thomas L. Springer the father is correct. That story reduced to its essential details is this. Thomas L. Springer negotiated for1 and bought the property in question. He paid all the cash which was paid on account of the purchase price.

For convenience he had the title placed in the name of his son, who executed a mortgage for the balance due on account of the purchase price, and who knew that it was conveyed to him ⁴⁷⁵ to hold for his father and mother. Thomas L. Springer from time to time made payments on account of the mortgage debt, paid the interest and current expenses on the property, and kept it in repair. Later he bought the reversion, and caused a deed for that also to be placed in the name of James, who then held the leasehold, and who then gave a mortgage for the purchase price, and at that time no cash whatever was advanced hy either the appellants or the appellees. Subsequently that mortgage was released and another mortgage was executed by James to cover the balance due on the old mortgage, and an