Where all the child beneficiaries of a trust attained majority, and the trustee, ex-wife in a divorce action had not sold the land, the land reverted to the trustee's ex-husband because the decree entitled him to possession of the land at that time.
Plaintiff wife, and her second husband, appealed an order from the district court which granted defendant ex-husband's motion for writ of possession to obtain possession of a certain tract of land dealt with in a divorce decree. The parties' divorce decree placed certain property in trust for the benefit of the parties' children. The wife was designated trustee. When the children reached majority, the property was to revert to the ex-husband. In the meantime the wife remarried and she and her second husband entered on the land. The second husband farmed it. He testified to a contract in which the wife agreed to sell him the land in consideration of his contributions to the support of her children. He claimed he was entitled to a deed.
Should the district court decision interpreting a divorce decree to grant the ex-husband possession of a certain tract of land be affirmed?
In affirming the order for the ex-husband, the court held that the testimony of the second husband was incredible. The court noted that he and the wife had neglected to plead this fact when they filed their joint response to the motion, and that the first time this appeared was when the second husband filed his separate answer and cross-petition to the motion, some 18 years after he allegedly bought the property.
The court affirmed this order that placed thee ex-husband in possession of the property.