Allen v. Allen
107 S.W. 528, 101 Tex. 362, 1908 Tex. LEXIS 174 (1908)
Sections
Rule of Law:
An express trust in land cannot be established by parol evidence based on an agreement made after legal title has already vested in the grantee; such a transaction constitutes a contract for sale or conveyance which must be in writing under the Statute of Frauds.
Facts:
- John H. Allen married his first wife in Mississippi in 1854 and never obtained a divorce.
- In 1872, John married Sallie in Texas; Sallie had no knowledge of John's existing marriage.
- In 1879, John purchased a 160-acre farm, receiving a deed that fully vested title in him immediately, and gave a note for the $160 purchase price.
- In 1883, four years after acquiring title, John induced Sallie to pay off the $160 purchase note using her separate funds by orally promising her that the land would be hers.
- Sallie subsequently used her own money to improve the 160-acre tract and to improve a separate property known as Block 38.
- John H. Allen died in 1904, leading to a dispute over ownership of the properties between his son from the first marriage and Sallie.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff (Son) sued Defendants (Sallie) in the District Court to recover the land and subsequently prayed for partition.
- The jury returned a special verdict regarding the marriage dates and payments.
- The District Court entered judgment for the Defendants, holding that all property belonged to Sallie Allen.
- Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment as to the 160-acre tract (finding a valid express trust) but reversed as to Block 38, rendering judgment for Plaintiff for one-half of that block.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an oral agreement between a land owner and a third party create a valid express trust when the agreement is made after legal title has already vested in the owner, specifically where the third party subsequently pays the purchase money note?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Williams
No, the court held that once legal title has fully vested in a party, a subsequent oral agreement to transfer that property to another violates the Statute of Frauds. The court reasoned that while Texas law allows express trusts to be proved by parol (oral) evidence, this exception applies only when the trust is created at the time title vests. In this case, John Allen acquired full legal and equitable title in 1879. The agreement with Sallie occurred in 1883. The court determined that an agreement by a current owner to make property belong to another is essentially a contract for the sale of real estate or a conveyance. Under statutory provisions (specifically Articles 624 and 3543 of the Revised Statutes), such transfers must be in writing. To allow an oral agreement made after title has vested to function as a 'trust' would effectively abrogate the Statute of Frauds. Consequently, Sallie did not acquire title to the 160 acres, although the court noted she might be entitled to reimbursement for her expenditures upon partition.
Analysis:
This decision places a crucial limitation on the 'Texas rule' regarding parol trusts. Texas is distinct in many jurisdictions for allowing oral evidence to prove express trusts in land. However, Allen v. Allen clarifies that this exception is temporally limited to the inception of the title. If the 'trust' agreement arises after the trustee has already taken title, the transaction is treated as a conveyance or sale, which triggers strict Statute of Frauds requirements. This prevents parties from bypassing writing requirements for standard property transfers by simply labeling them 'trusts.' The case balances the flexibility of equity (recognizing trusts) with the certainty required by property statutes.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Allen v. Allen (1908)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"