Estate of Theodore C. Chemodurow, Deceased, Gail C. Williams, Executor - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
               Gail’s direction, or any of his other tax returns                      
               introduced at trial, that reflected any payments from                  
               Gail to Theodore for the Abagail Ranch.                                
                    7.  The Court concludes that Gail provided no                     
               monetary consideration for the Abagail Ranch, as                       
               claimed by Gail.  The Court also concludes that love                   
               and affection between Theodore and Gail, if any, is not                
               considered valuable consideration for the conveyance.                  
               Baker Nat. Bank v. Lestar, 153 Mont. 45, 57; 453 P.2d                  
               774, 781.  Without consideration and absent a gift                     
               theory, the attempt to transfer ownership of the                       
               Abagail Ranch to Gail in 1995 is void.  Eliason v.                     
               Eliason (1968), 151 Mont. 409, 417; 443 P. 2d 884, 889.                
                    8.  With regards to a gift theory, there was no                   
               evidence presented at trial that the attempted transfer                
               from Theodore to Gail in 1995 was intended to be a                     
               gift.  In order for there to be a valid inter vivos                    
               gift, Theodore must have had donative intent.  State                   
               Board of Equalization v. Cole (1948), 122 Mont. 9, 14;                 
               195 P.2d 989, 992.  Gail did not argue in her pleadings                
               or at the time of trial that Theodore ever intended to                 
               gift her any portion of the ranch.  Rather, she said                   
               she was to pay for it and Theodore “intended” to sell                  
               it to her.                                                             
                    9.  Because there was no consideration provided by                
               Gail for the ranch and gift is not an issue in this                    
               case, the Court concludes that the August and December                 
               1995 deeds are null, void and subject to cancellation.                 
               Eliason, 151 Mont. at 417.                                             
                    10.  In light of the fact that there was no valid                 
               transfer to Gail and no gift, that portion of the                      
               Abagail Ranch subject to the quiet title action should                 
               be a part of the Estate of Theodore Chemodurow.  Gail                  
               may have title to the property by virtue of one of two                 
               deeds, but as a matter of equity, Gail holds title to                  
               the property in constructive trust for the Estate of                   
               Theodore Chemodurow.                                                   
                           *    *    *    *    *    *    *                            
                    In this case, Gail is subject to an equitable duty                
               to convey it to the Estate until such time as all of                   
               Theodore’s affairs are settled and the probate court                   
               permits her to distribute the estate according to                      
               Theodore’s last Will.  To permit Gail to keep the ranch                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011