Tiemann v. Welsh

Collins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by John F. William Tiemann and Amelia Elizabeth Tiemann, his wife, appellants, from a decree of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City ordering the appellants to execute a deed to the property known as 802 West Pratt Street, in Baltimore City, unto Maggie A. Welsh, appellee, free and clear of all claims and encumbrances. Testimony in the case presents the following facts. In September, 1920, Maggie A. Welsh, the appellee, hav ⁴ ing rented the property here in dispute from the Hopkins Place Savings Bank of Baltimore City for a period of approximately thirty-seven years, purchased that property from the bank for a purchase price of $4,000, which she paid.

At the express request of Mrs. Welsh, the Hopkins Place Savings Bank executed and acknowledged a deed to the appellants, her niece and nephew, conveying the property to them as tenants by the entireties and the deed was so recorded. Since the purchase of the property Mrs. Welsh, the appellee, has continuously occupied it without payment of rent. She has also paid the taxes since the purchase. She stated that she paid for all repairs to the property, except some carpenter work and the painting of the store front which appellants claim was paid by them.

Mrs. Welsh claims that she supplied the appellants with money with which appellants paid for these items. Mrs. Welsh testified , that before she purchased the property in September, 1920, she asked the Hopkins Place Savings Bank whether she could have the property put in the names of her niece and nephew, the appellants, and she was informed that this could be done. She said that in the meantime she told the appellants that she was going to use their names and asked them whether this would be “all right” and they consented. She said that the reason she wanted the property put in the appellants’ names was: “Well, for fear that I was so good hearted and done favors, they would come and ask me to do favors as it was in my name.” She evidently meant by this remark that she wanted to protect the property from creditors which she might incur by reason of doing favors for other people.

She further stated that she never gave the deed to any one, but kept it in her possession since it was recorded. She further said that the appellants told her to keep the deed and she could use their names. On the other hand, Mrs. Tiemann testified that the first time she heard of the transaction was when the appellee brought the deed to her home in December, 1920, ⁵ and gave it to her saying that the property was to be that of the appellants, and the appellee wanted them to have it, and she would pay the expenses and would stay there. Mrs. Tiemann further testified that she kept the deed until 1944, when the appellee asked for its return so that she could show it to a carpenter who was doing some work on the property.

Mrs. Welsh denies that she ever gave the deed to either of the appellants or that she ever said that she wanted the appellants to have the property. Friendly relationship continued between the appellee and her niece and nephew, the appellants, until February, 1945. At that time Mrs. Welsh claimed that Mrs. Tiemann “put that lie on my dead brother. I couldn’t get over it and she ignored me.” In 1946, through her attorney, the appellee made demand on the appellants that the property be deeded to her.

Mrs. Tiemann testified that she had no objection to the appellee remaining in the property and had no intention of dispossessing her. Upon failure of the appellants to convey, the appellee, on March 20, 1947, filed a bill of complaint asking that the appellants be required to convey the property to her. From the decree ordering the conveyance to be made, the appellants appeal. The appellee has filed in this case a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the appeal was filed by the appellants on December 5, 1947,