Page 577 |
Previous | 577 of 832 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
N.C.App.1 SPRING SESSION 1973 553
Lasater v. Lasater
property for tax purposes and neither William Barrett Lasater
nor petitioners have ever done so, and that the only claim Wil-liam
Barrett Lasater made to said lands during his lifetime
was with respect to his right to be reimbursed for the $3,100.00
which he paid to Harnett County.
In their reply to the counterclaim, petitioners denied that
respondent's wife had any interest in the property and alleged
that they and respondent were tenants in common of not only
the 2.6 acre tract of land described in the petition, but also of
the 7 acre tract of land first mentioned by respondent in the
counterclaim.
In 7 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Trusts § 13, p. 422, it is
stated :
"A par01 agreement to purchase at a foreclosure or
judicial sale and hold the title for the debtor, and to re-convey
the legal title to the debtor upon repayment of the
amount advanced, creates a resulting trust, provided the
agreement is made at or before the time the legal estate
passes."
In Paul v. Neece, 244 N.C. 565, 568, 94 S.E. 2d 596, 598
(1956), it is stated :
"[Ilt is uniformly held to be the law in this State
that where one person buys land under a par01 agreement
to do so and to hold it for another until he repays the pur-chase
money, the purchaser becomes a truste~ef or the party
for whom he purchased the land, and equity will enforce
such an agreement."
At the time of entry of summary judgment, the court had
before it only the pleadings of the parties which we hold show
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether William
Barrett Lasater agreed with respondent and his wife to pur-chase
at the foreclosure sale the 2.6 and 7 acre tracts of land
and hold the title thereto in trust for the benefit of the respond-ent
and his wife until such time as he was reimbursed the
purchase price when he would convey the legal title to the
land to the respondent and his wife.
Although respondent's wife apparently signed the answer
and counterclaim which wax verified by her husband, the record
before us does not indicate that she has been made a party to
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.018, Spring Session 1973] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1973 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 18, Spring Session 1973. Cited as 18 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 36.8 MB; 832 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_018.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 577 |
| Full Text | N.C.App.1 SPRING SESSION 1973 553 Lasater v. Lasater property for tax purposes and neither William Barrett Lasater nor petitioners have ever done so, and that the only claim Wil-liam Barrett Lasater made to said lands during his lifetime was with respect to his right to be reimbursed for the $3,100.00 which he paid to Harnett County. In their reply to the counterclaim, petitioners denied that respondent's wife had any interest in the property and alleged that they and respondent were tenants in common of not only the 2.6 acre tract of land described in the petition, but also of the 7 acre tract of land first mentioned by respondent in the counterclaim. In 7 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Trusts § 13, p. 422, it is stated : "A par01 agreement to purchase at a foreclosure or judicial sale and hold the title for the debtor, and to re-convey the legal title to the debtor upon repayment of the amount advanced, creates a resulting trust, provided the agreement is made at or before the time the legal estate passes." In Paul v. Neece, 244 N.C. 565, 568, 94 S.E. 2d 596, 598 (1956), it is stated : "[Ilt is uniformly held to be the law in this State that where one person buys land under a par01 agreement to do so and to hold it for another until he repays the pur-chase money, the purchaser becomes a truste~ef or the party for whom he purchased the land, and equity will enforce such an agreement." At the time of entry of summary judgment, the court had before it only the pleadings of the parties which we hold show there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether William Barrett Lasater agreed with respondent and his wife to pur-chase at the foreclosure sale the 2.6 and 7 acre tracts of land and hold the title thereto in trust for the benefit of the respond-ent and his wife until such time as he was reimbursed the purchase price when he would convey the legal title to the land to the respondent and his wife. Although respondent's wife apparently signed the answer and counterclaim which wax verified by her husband, the record before us does not indicate that she has been made a party to |
