Bryant v. Bryant

Citations: 239 Ark. 61; 387 S.W.2d 322; 1965 Ark. LEXIS 927Docket: 5-3484

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; March 1, 1965; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion OriginalDissent AnalysisDissent Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The litigation centers on the validity of a deed involving a forty-acre tract in Montgomery County, conveyed to Noles Bryant and her former husband, Dr. Robert L. Bryant, by Dr. Bryant’s deceased father’s widow and heirs. The deed indicates that the grantees would provide housing for Mrs. Lou Bryant for her lifetime in exchange for $3,500, which is acknowledged as paid. It is uncontested that Dr. Bryant provided a home for Mrs. Lou Bryant on a separate one-acre tract. After Dr. Bryant and Noles divorced in 1953, the divorce decree specified property division but did not mention the forty acres. Later that year, Dr. Bryant remarried and subsequently executed a deed conveying the forty acres to an attorney, who then transferred the property back to Dr. Bryant and his new wife. Following Dr. Bryant's death in 1955, his second wife transferred both properties to Mrs. Lou Bryant. Noles Bryant initiated the lawsuit, claiming sole ownership of the forty-acre tract as the survivor of the estate by the entirety. The appellees countered that the $3,500 consideration was never paid and sought to cancel the deed. The court ruled in favor of the appellees, declaring the deed invalid due to lack of consideration. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, referencing precedents that establish the acknowledgment of consideration in a deed cannot be disproved to defeat the conveyance, unless fraud is involved. The court reiterated that while parol evidence cannot contradict the stated consideration to invalidate a deed, it can demonstrate that the consideration was not paid.

A deed can be rescinded due to total failure of consideration, but generally, a valid deed remains effective despite partial or total failure of consideration unless there is statutory authority or explicit forfeiture terms. A grantee's failure to fulfill a promise tied to the consideration does not typically invalidate the deed or create a lien against the property. In the case of Wheeler v. Wendleton, it was determined that non-payment of consideration does not revert title but permits the grantor to seek collection for improvements or taxes. In cases involving future support and maintenance agreements, if the grantee fails to fulfill their obligations, the grantor may pursue damages or seek cancellation of the deed. 

In this instance, the appellees argued that a $3,500 payment was meant for the mother's support, leading to the deed's cancellation by the chancellor. However, the deed itself does not specify that the payment was for support nor impose a future obligation on Dr. Bryant beyond providing housing. The court found insufficient evidence to establish that the $3,500 was designated for support or that it had not been paid. Sufficient proof must be clear and convincing to justify setting aside a deed for failure of consideration. Conflicting testimonies regarding the payment were presented, but Dr. Bryant's actions indicated he believed the transaction was completed, recognizing his first wife's interest in the property.

Lou Bryant, the mother, testified that a sum of $3,500 was intended for her and her children, to be divided equally among them. Multiple children corroborated this, stating that the funds were meant for the mother and heirs, with specific mentions of support for the mother’s living expenses. Anna Barber indicated that Dr. Bryant was supposed to support their mother, which he failed to do. Wesley Bryant understood that the purchase price of the land would be deposited in a bank to support their mother until her death, with any remaining funds to be divided among the heirs. Oda Rogers supported this by stating their brother was to deposit the $3,500 for their mother's use. Testimonies revealed no agreement among the heirs regarding the distribution of the funds or that it was solely for the mother's support. The heirs alleged fraud concerning the deed procurement, but the chancellor found no evidence to substantiate this claim. The evidence did not convincingly demonstrate that the $3,500 was designated for the mother's support, leading to a reversal of the decree. The Montgomery County Chancery Court was directed to cancel certain deeds related to the forty-acre tract in question. It was noted that no lien was retained in the deed and that the heirs resided in various states, with some not testifying. McFaddin, J. dissented.