- 19 -
Among the parties defendant in Cause No. 96-109 are “the
heirs and devisees of [decedent]” and all other persons “known or
unknown” claiming an interest in the Abagail ranch.
Among Ms. Williams’ prayers for relief is the following:
That it be decreed and adjudged by this court that the
Defendants and each and all of them * * * have no
right, title, estate, or interest in or to, or lien or
encumbrance upon, the * * * [Abagail Ranch], and that
the Plaintiff is the sole and lawful owner thereof in
fee simple absolute, by and through good and valid
title thereto.
The State court determined that, notwithstanding that title
to the Abagail ranch may have appeared in the name of
Ms. Williams, any title she held was held in constructive trust
for the estate of decedent. In particular, the State court
found: “Gail did not purchase any portion of the Abagail ranch
at any time.” Based on that finding, the State court concluded
that, for lack of consideration: “[T]he attempt to transfer
ownership of the Abagail ranch to Gail in 1995 is void”, and “the
August and December 1995 deeds are null, void and subject to
cancellation”. The State court also concluded: “[T]hat portion
of the Abagail Ranch that Gail seeks to quiet title is held in
constructive trust for the Estate of [decedent].”2 The State
court’s findings and conclusions of law directly contradict
2 The State court imposed the following duty upon Gail:
“Gail is subject to an equitable duty to convey it [the Abagail
Ranch] to the Estate until such time as all of * * * [decedent’s]
affairs are settled and the probate court permits her to
distribute the estate according to * * * [decedent’s] last Will.”
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011