Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0662-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAMILTON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 844
    ANTENEN, Admr. v. FRAZER et
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Butler Co.
    No. 300.
    Decided May 24, 1926
    1197. TRUSTS & TRUSTEES — A deed absolute upon its face will not have engrafted upon it a parol trust unless the evidence is clear and convincing as to the terms of the trust; and also as to declarations of trust made contemporaneously with execution of the deed.
    Attorneys — Harry S. Wonnell for Antenen; B. Vincent Pater & L. J. Ziliox for Frazer; all of Hamilton.
   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.