Davis v. Davis

Supreme Court of Georgia

Davis v. Davis

228 S.E.2d 838, 237 Ga. 448, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1263

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 7, 1976

Docket31310

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 228 S.E.2d 838 (Davis v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Davis, 228 S.E.2d 838, 237 Ga. 448, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1263 (Ga. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Jordan, Justice.

Flostine Davis sued Alton Davis for divorce. Alton counterclaimed asking for a decree that certain property, possession of which or title was in Flostine, be impressed with a trust for his benefit. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict against Alton on the trust issue. This is the only question raised on the appeal.

After a careful review of the record, we' have concluded that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the wife-appellee on this issue. The appellant testified that he conveyed his one-half interest in their house to appellee because he feared a lawsuit and that appellee orally agreed to re-convey same after the threat was over. Even if such a promise were proven, appellant could not recover the property absent a showing that the promise, when made, was fraudulent. Bennett v. Bennett, 212 Ga. 128 (91 SE2d 29) (1956) and Westbrook v. Westbrook, 212 Ga. 472 (93 SE2d 683) (1956). Appellant’s counterclaim did not allege fraud and there was no evidence that the promise was fraudulently made. As to certain money furnished by appellant to purchase a bond, there was no evidence that the parties made any agreement, express or otherwise, as to who would have *449 ownership thereof.

Submitted July 2, 1976 Decided September 7, 1976. Zachary & Segraves, W. E. Zachary, Sr., for appellant. Hoyt L. Bradford, for appellee.

The evidence failed to show a trust in favor of the appellant as to either the realty or the bond.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Jordan, Justice.

Flostine Davis sued Alton Davis for divorce. Alton counterclaimed asking for a decree that certain property, possession of which or title was in Flostine, be impressed with a trust for his benefit. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict against Alton on the trust issue. This is the only question raised on the appeal.

After a careful review of the record, we' have concluded that the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for the wife-appellee on this issue. The appellant testified that he conveyed his one-half interest in their house to appellee because he feared a lawsuit and that appellee orally agreed to re-convey same after the threat was over. Even if such a promise were proven, appellant could not recover the property absent a showing that the promise, when made, was fraudulent. Bennett v. Bennett, 212 Ga. 128 (91 SE2d 29) (1956) and Westbrook v. Westbrook, 212 Ga. 472 (93 SE2d 683) (1956). Appellant’s counterclaim did not allege fraud and there was no evidence that the promise was fraudulently made. As to certain money furnished by appellant to purchase a bond, there was no evidence that the parties made any agreement, express or otherwise, as to who would have *449 ownership thereof.

Submitted July 2, 1976 Decided September 7, 1976. Zachary & Segraves, W. E. Zachary, Sr., for appellant. Hoyt L. Bradford, for appellee.

The evidence failed to show a trust in favor of the appellant as to either the realty or the bond.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 S.E.2d 838, 237 Ga. 448, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-davis-ga-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack