Antenen, Admr. v. Frazer

Ohio Court of Appeals

Antenen, Admr. v. Frazer

153 N.E. 229, 22 Ohio App. 121, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 662, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 469

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 24, 1926

Docket300

StatusPublished

This text of 153 N.E. 229 (Antenen, Admr. v. Frazer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Antenen, Admr. v. Frazer, 153 N.E. 229, 22 Ohio App. 121, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 662, 1926 Ohio App. LEXIS 469 (Ohio Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

HAMILTON, J.

Anna Gardner, in 1910, conveyed certain property to her son Andrew Gardner, by warranty deed. Anna Gardner died in 1924 leaving several children, Andrew having pre-deceased her.

Carl Antenen, the administrator, brought an action in the Butler Common Pleas seeking to engraft a parol trust upon the deed. The case was taken up on appeal and the Court of Appeals held:

1. To engraft a parol trust upon a deed absolute, the evidence shall be clear and convincing as to the terms of the trust; and the declarations of the trust must likewise be clear, convincing and conclusive and contemporaneous with the execution of the deed. 69 OS. 273.

2. Tt appears from the evidence that the decedent was harrassed by creditors and sought relief from them; that she was going to- deed her property to Andrew who would return same when she wanted it.

3. This evidence is all that tends to support a parol trust; and it falls short of that character of evidence required to establish such a trust.

4. The evidence tends more to support the proposition that the transfer was made primarily to defeat creditors.

Injunction prayed for denied, and petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI