THOMPSON v. BEARDEN., 265 Ga. 16, 453 S.E.2.d 20 (1995)
Linked as:
Text
Clifton M. Patty, Jr., for appellant.
J. P. and Pearl Moore conveyed certain real property to Dan and Mary Bearden via warranty deed. The total purchase price of the property was $5,500. The Beardens made a down payment of $2,500 and agreed to pay the balance in monthly installments of $40.
Dorse Bearden, Dan's brother, lived with the Beardens on the property. He gave Dan $40 per month until the balance due was paid.
The Beardens died (within one week of each other) intestate, thirty years after they purchased the property. Dorse claimed he was entitled to the property pursuant to a resulting trust. The administratrix of the Beardens' estates disagreed and the case was tried by a jury.
At trial, Dorse testified that Dan made the $2,500 down payment and he paid the balance in installments of $40 per month. Asked if he contributed anything toward the down payment, Dorse replied that he did not.
The jury awarded the property to Dorse and judgment was entered accordingly. The administratrix moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial. The motion was denied and the administratrix appeals, asserting the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. We agree and reverse.
1. At the outset it should be noted that the law favors title to realty being evidenced by written instruments. [Cits.] Conversely, the law does not favor title to realty being evidenced by parol agreements, including parol resulting trusts. Parol trusts claimed after the death of the alleged trustee are particularly not favored. For the foregoing reasons the law requires that resulting trusts be shown by clear and convincing proof. [Cits.]
Freeman v. Saxton, 222 Ga. 373, 376 (149 SE2d 808) (1966). The fact that Dorse made the subsequent installment payments does not support a contrary conclusion. Loggins v. Daves, supra at 629.
John O. Wiggins, for appellee.
Sponsored links
