Opinion ID: 1701473
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ownership by patent

Text: Plaintiff, Walter Brooks, asserts that the legal title that John Coulton received in the property through a United States government patent issued to him in 1921 was a bare legal title and that, in fact, his wife, Kristine, was the equitable owner of the property. Plaintiff therefore asks this court to hold that the trial court's finding that John Coulton was the sole owner of said property (and thus, implicitly, that no such trust relationship arose which required enforcement thereof through the utilization of the equity powers of the trial court) is clearly erroneous. A review of the record in this case reveals that the evidence which might tend to support such a bifurcation of legal and equitable ownership between John and Kristine Coulton consists of the following: 1. Testimony that Kristine and her first husband, Lars Peterson, began homesteading the land and lived thereon prior to Lars' death and Kristine's subsequent marriage to John Coulton. 2. A plat of Vanville Township, Burke County, North Dakota, contained in a 1914 volume entitled the Standard Atlas of Burke County, North Dakota, which volume was compiled and published by Geo. A. Ogle and Co., Chicago, Illinois, in which the name Christine ( sic ) Peterson was imposed over that portion of the plat representing the property in question. 3. Testimony that Clarence Tinjum's father and, later, Clarence Tinjum, paid annual rent for the property by check to Kristine Coulton until her death. The purport of this evidence and the inferences which might be drawn therefrom fall far short of any standard which might be necessary to support the imposition of a trust relationship as advocated by the plaintiff, Brooks, especially in light of the fact that the inferences favorable to the plaintiff which can be drawn from this evidence, without more, do not tend to establish Brooks' contention as, in some way, preponderating over the inference that the evidence adduced is merely indicia of actions with no intendment behind them except the normal functioning of a marital household and the marital partners therein. We hold that the trial court's finding in this matter is not clearly erroneous.