Summary
The court affirmed the denial of relief in a suit seeking to establish and enforce a resulting or constructive trust in real property. The complainant failed to show that he jointly purchased the property or contributed purchase money, and the trial court’s factual findings were entitled to deference because it heard the oral testimony and examined disputed documentary evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence established that Vafes held a resulting or constructive trust and a one-half beneficial interest in the land.
- Whether the trial court's ore tenus factual findings were plainly and palpably erroneous and therefore subject to reversal.
Holdings
- The trial court's findings were entitled to the presumptions accorded a jury verdict and were not shown to be plainly and palpably erroneous.
- Vafes did not establish entitlement to a resulting or constructive trust or a one-half beneficial interest in the property.
Key quotations
“That such finding has all the presumptions indulged in favor of the verdict of a jury is well settled.” (119 So. at 643)
“The issue was purely one of fact, the burden being on complainant.” (119 So. at 660)
Factual background
Dr. A. L. Vafes claimed that he and George Stritikus jointly purchased land and that Vafes contributed one-half of the purchase money, but that title was taken in the name of George's wife, Prisena, without Vafes's knowledge. Vafes alleged concealment, fraud, and continued advances of money toward the purchase price, while the respondents denied that he participated in the purchase. The evidence included disputed check notations, a disputed signature, and a sworn certificate characterizing money advanced by Vafes as a personal loan rather than an ownership contribution.
Procedural history
The trial court heard the case on oral testimony and denied complainant's claim to a one-half beneficial interest in the property. The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the evidentiary record and affirmed.