Vogel v. Vogel

Pattison, L, delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill of complaint in this case was filed by the appellee Louis Vogel, a practicing physician of Baltimore City, against his brother Walter W. Vogel, the appellant. The substantial allegations of the bill are as follows: (1) That, on the 16th day of August, 1899, Louis Vogel and Charles E. Vogel, his brother, rented the premises on the northwest comer of Luzerne and Payette Streets, in the City of Baltimore, for the purpose of there conducting a drug business, with the understanding between them that, upon the death of either, the business, including all the assets and good will thereof, was to belong to the survivor. ¹⁴⁹ (2) That, on the 15th day of May, 1902, Louis- Vogel, and Charles E. .Vogel purchased the leasehold interest in said property, at and for the sum of $2,000, subject to a ground rent thereon of $41.25, and had the title to the property conveyed “in the names of their parents Frederick Vogel and Mary Vogel.” That at the time of the purchase thereof, the sum of approximately $336 was paid on account of the purchase price by Louis and Charles F. Vogel, -out of the. proceeds of the business conducted by them at the place named, and the balance of said purchase price, $1,664, was. obtained by a loan, secured by a mortgage on the property, executed by the said Frederick Vogel and Mary Vogel, which mortgage indebtedness was repaid by the -complainant and his brother Charles F. Vogel, out of the proceeds of the business conducted by them. (3) That, although the leasehold interest in the property was conveyed to their parents, Frederick and Mary Vogel, it was expressly understood between the parents and the complainant and his brother, Charles F. Vogel, that the latter were the real owners thereof, as though the title was in their names, and “that they were not at anytime to relinquish their right of ownership- therein.” That their object “in having the title of said property assigned to- their parents was to avoid the necessity of any legal proceeding on the part of their parents, in the event they both should predecease their said parents, for it was” their desire “that their parents should have said property,” should their parents survive them; and it was further the understanding “between the parties that in the event their parents should predecease the said sons, or either of them, arrangements were to be made whereby the title to said property was to be conveyed to said sons.” (4) That the complainant and Charles F. Vogel continued to conduct said business until the death of the latter, on the 20th clay of October, 1905.

That, although the complainant never, at any time, relinquished control or ownership of, or in, said drug business, “he, at the time of the death of his brother Charles F. Vogel, and his father Fred ¹⁵⁰ erick Vogel, assumed the management of said business. That, thereafter, the said defendant Walter W. Vogel, also became active in the management and conduct of said business until the year 1914, when * * * Frederick Vogel died and that thereafter the management of said business was ■continued by * * * Walter W. Vogel, and he has so conducted the same to the present time. That it is and has been well known and acknowledged by all the members of the family” that the complainant, “since the death of the said Oharles F. Vogel, has been the sole owner of said business and that the said defendant Walter W. Vogel has been merely conducting and managing the same” for the complainant. “That the defendant also recognized” the complainant “as the owner of said business, but in the month of December, 1924, and since then the said defendant has refused to respect the rights” of the complainant “in said business.” (5) That, on the 16th day of November, 1906, the complainant purchased the reversionary estate of said premises ■on the northwest corner of Fayette and Luzerne Streets at and for the sum of $687.50, and though the title thereto was conveyed in the names of the parents, Frederick and Mary Vogel, the purchase price _ therefor was paid by the complainant, and it.was understood that the property was to be held by them, Frederick and Mary Vogel, for the benefit of the complainant. That the object or purpose of placing the title of the property in the parents was the same as that .already hereinbefore stated in respect to the leasehold interest conveyed to the parents.

(6) That “Frederick Vogel and Mary E. Vogel acting under the influence of domination of the said defendant Walter W. Vogel, by deed dated the 26th day of May, 1913, conveyed said fee simple property * * * to the Land Annuities Company in trust for themselves, so long as they or the survivor of them should live, and upon the death of both the said Frederick Vogel and Mary E. Vogel, the trust thereby created to cease and the title to said fee simple property to vest in the defendant Walter W. Vogel.” The allega ¹⁵¹ tion is then made that the execution of said deed was without consideration and was fraudulently procured by the said defendant without the knowledge of the complainant, “and for the express purposes of defeating” the complainant “of his right of ownership in said property.” That Walter W.. Vogel, at the time of the execution of said deed last mentioned, knew of the arrangement and understanding had between his parents and the complainant, and knew that the complainant “was in reality the owner of said fee simple-property, notwithstanding the fact that title thereto was permitted by him to remain in the names of Frederick Vogel and Mary E. Vogel, and further knew that the title of said fee simple property * * * was upon the death of the said Frederick Vogel and Mary E. Vogel to be conveyed” to the complainant. That Frederick Vogel died in the month of June, 1914, and the said Mary E. Vogel died in the month of December, 1924, since which time the defendant has been in possession of the property. (Y) In conclusion the complainant charges and avers that, the fee simple property and the assets of the drug business belong to him, and that he, therefore, is entitled to have a resulting trust declared in his favor as to the fee simple property and the assets of said business.

This was followed by a prayer asking that such a trust be declared and that a trustee be appointed to convey the fee simple property and the assets of the drug business to the complainant. A full and complete answer was filed to the bill, in which all of the essential allegations were denied, and we need not, we think, state the denials with any particularity. A large volume of testimony was taken, and after argument thereon the learned court below held that “a resulting-trust” * * * existed in favor of the complainant, Louis Vogel, for an undivided one-half interest in the fee simple-property” mentioned in the proceedings, and “an undivided one-half interest in the drug business conducted at said premises, plus one-half of all of the net profits and savings accumulated from said business whether now in the form of ¹⁵² personalty and/or realty, less one-half of such sums of money as were used or disposed of by the said Frederick Vogel and/or Mary Vogel during their lives; that the other undivided one-half interest in said property and business was also charged with the resulting trust in favor of the said Oharles F. Vogel, and that, therefore, the complainant, Louis Vogel (in addition to his undivided one-half interest herein above mentioned), the defendant Walter W. Vogel, and the said Frederick G. Vogel (a brother of Louis and William Vogel) as the heirs at law and next of kin of their parents Frederick Vogel and Mary Vogel, are each entitled to an undivided one-sixth interest in said fee simple property, drug business, and net profits and savings accumulated therefrom, whether now in the form of personalty and/or realty, less one-half of such sums of money as were used or disposed of by the said Frederick and/or Mary Vogel during their lives, each share to be charged with one-third of the amount of such deduction.” It was thereupon, on the 11th day of October, 1928, adjudged, ordered and decreed by the court, that the defendant, Walter W. Vogel, convey unto Louis and Frederick G. Vogel their respective interests, as above held, in the fee simple property, and that he should account for, “pay to and transfer” to Louis and Frederick G. Vogel their respective interests, under the finding of the court, in the “net .profits and .savings accumulated from said business” as above set forth, and further ordered and decreed that the proceedings be referred to the auditor of the court “to state an account of the assets and liabilities of said drug business and the net profits and savings accumulated from said business,” though “Walter W. Vogel shall not be required to account for any of the money as was used or disposed of by the said Frederick Vogel and Mary Vogel * * * during' their lives,” and leave was thereby “granted to the parties to take such further testimony before said auditor” as might be necessary for the statement of an account. And it was further adjudged, ordered and decreed that the cost of the proceedings up to the date of the decree should be paid out of the estate. ¹⁵³ It was from that decree the appeal was taken.

The plaintiff by his bill seeks to establish a resulting trust in his favor, both as to the fee simple property at the corner of Luzerne and Fayette Streets, and the drug business there conducted. We will state first the principles of law as to the creation of resulting trusts and second, the character of proof required to establish them. We will then consider the evidence offered in the light of those principles, and decide whether a resulting trust is thereby created in favor of the appellee as to the real and personal property mentioned. The rule is now well established that where, upon the purchase of property, the conveyance of the legal title is taken in the name of one person, while the consideration, or a part of it, is paid by another, not in the way of a loan to the grantee, and there is no natural or moral obligation on the part of the person paying the same to provide for such grantee, as in the case of parent and child, or husband and wife, a resulting trust immediately arises from the transaction, and the person named in the conveyance will be trustee for the party from whom the consideration proceeds, unless a different intention is shown.

In ail species of resulting trusts, intention is an essential element, although that intention is never expressed by any words of direct creation. Dixon v. Dixon, 123 Md. 44 ; 1 Perry on Trusts, sec. 126; Springer v. Springer, 144 Md. 465 ; Dorsey v. Clarke, 4 H. & J. 551 ; Witts v. Horney, 59 Md. 586 ; Keller v. Kunkel, 46 Md. 571 ; Keller v. Keller, 45 Md. 274 ; Plummer v. Jarman, 44 Md. 639 ; Green v. Drummond, 31 Md. 81 ; Bank v. Snively, 23 Md. 261 ; Brawner v. Staup, 21 Md. 337 ; Greer v. Baughman, 13 Md. 268 ; Faringer v. Ramsay, 2 Md. 374 ; Hollis v. Hollis, 1 Md. Ch. 482 ; Brooks v. Dent, 1 Md. Ch. 527 . A person who undertakes to establish a resulting trust takes the burden of proof on himself (R. C. L. 26, p. 1229), and, as was said by J udge Burke in Dixon v. Dixon, supra: “ ‘Payment or advance of the purchase money by the party claiming the trust, before or at the time of the purchase, ¹⁵⁴ is indispensable.’ Hays et al. v. Hollis, 8 Gill, 357 ; Holliday v. Schoop, 4 Md. 465 ; Brawner v. Staup, 21 Md. 328 ; ‘It is held in all the cases that the payment, which is the foundation of the trust, must be made out by plain, direct, and unequivocal evidence.’ Keller v. Keller, 45 Md. 269 ; Thomas v. Standiford, 49 Md. 181 ; Greer v. Baughman, 13 Md. 257 . “When the plaintiff relies upon mere parol