Court Opinion

ID: 9845563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:24:16.901071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:13.880403
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
(dissenting)—White's sworn statement "There was no provision for equity" must be taken in the full context of the civil case, not on the selective basis employed by the majority. Violante brought the civil action to quiet title and recover possession of his residential property from White, receiving judgment sustaining him on all grounds. Violante v. White, 26 Wn. App. 391, 612 P.2d 828 *668(1980). From the very first, White schemed to acquire Violante's $58,500 house by assuming the mortgage indebtedness of $31,000, paying Violante no money. Through resort to devious methods of which the statutory deed and promissory note are part, White did get title and possession of the property. When he testified that there was no provision for equity in the sale agreement, he was attempting to deceive the trial court upon the central issue in the case. This is seen when we know what happened before, at the time and after the statement was made, not in isolation as the majority would have it.
The initial contact came when White called Violante on the telephone in answer to Violante's newspaper ad listing the house for sale for $58,500. The time is 2 p.m. on June 5, 1978. The versions of the telephone call are:
By Violante:
Q How did you come in contact with Mr. White?
A The first contact was by telephone.
Q What was the essence of that contact?
A He asked if my house was still up for sale. I said yes, it was. He inquired as to the purchasing price. I told him. He asked what the . equity was, and I told him. He asked for a general description of the house. Gave that to him, and he replied that he thought this was just about what he was looking for and if he could come out, take a look, which I said yes, he could.
Q Did you deviate, in telling Mr. White what
By White:
Q
And how was that contact made?
A
It was also through an ad in the paper. I called Mr. Violante and I explained to him what I was trying to do, and he says, "Well, come on over to the house, we can work something out."...
Q
Now, you indicated you expressed to Mr. Violante what you wanted to do. Would you be a little more definite for us?
A
Q
I was looking for something I could assume with no money. And what was his response to that?
A
His response was, "We can work something out. *669your asking price was, from the advertised price?
A No, I did not.
Q What was the advertised price?
A Fifty-eight thousand five hundred ...
Exhibit 1, at 10-11.
Q [H]ow much did you tell Mr. White you were asking for the house?
A $58,500, . . .
Q What did you tell Mr. White insofar as the equity was concerned?
A I explained to him that I had two mortgages at $31,000, and was seeking the rest in equity that I wanted to close out.
Q So basically you're talking $31,000 in mortgages and the difference between that and the $58,000 was what you considered to be your equity?
A Yes, I was estimating at that time about $27,000.
Q Now, what discussion did you have with Mr. White about that $27,000?
A He commented that this would be no problem as he had just sold his restaurant named Ben Paris, located in Seattle, and was going to receive $100,000 for the sale of that property.
Q Did you indicate at that time that you were willing to give away the difference between the $58,000 asking Come over and see the house."
Verbatim Report of Proceedings, at 144-45. *670price and the $31,000 mortgage?
A No.
Verbatim Report of Proceedings, at 36-37.
Within a few minutes White went to see the house. Present were White, Violante and his daughter. The time, 2:30 p.m., June 5, 1978.
By Violante:
Q What happened when he arrived?
A He came out, introduced ourselves. I showed him the home. We walked around the grounds and we were talking about the possible arrangements for purchasing the house.
Q Did you discuss terms at that time?
A Not specifically. He again reiterated that he was selling his property at Ben Paris and that he was going to be receiving a hundred thousand dollars, which half would be his, as he was in a partnership.
Q Now, during the 3:30 visit, did you ever tell Mr. White that you were willing to let the house go on a straight assumption with no provision for equity?
A No, at no time.
Q Did you tell him you would when he initially called at 2:00?
A No.
By White:
Q What was the conversation that you had about the price of the house?
A
I explained to him that I was looking for something with a no cash outlay and I wanted something that—just to assume, and he at that time described the fact that there was two mortgages on the house and was that going to create any problem, and I told him—I told him no, that I was interested more in terms than what the payments were—you know, terms meaning the amount of cash to get in.
Q
What did he tell you it would cost you to get in?
A
He told me that if I could assume the two mortgages, that we could go that route. He was concerned that one mortgage would not be assumable.
Q It's not unusual to assume a mortgage. However, when you're buying a house with a substantial equity, there has to be *671Verbatim Report of Proceedings, at 38-39.
By Violante's Daughter:
Q Did you hear any discussions between your father and Mr. White about the Ben Paris Restaurant?
A Yeah.
Q Do you recall what those discussions were?
A Well, he had said that he was selling his restaurant and needed to get out of his house and he was in the middle of money right now—you know, that he was waiting for the money from his restaurant, but he needed to get out of his house.
Exhibit 1, at 134.
That evening, White and his wife came to the house. Present were the Whites, Violante and a friend, Lynne Alexander. The time, 7 p.m., June 5, 1978.
By Violante:
Q [Tjell the judge in particular what discussions you had about some provision made for the equity purchase. What was the deal in regard to that? . . .
A There was no provisions for equity.
Q Was it just not raised or was it: "I'll give you this house if you'll just take over the payments on the mortgage"?
A That's what it was.
Q And that's what Mr. Violante told you.
A Right. This was what the discussion was.
Exhibit 1, at 111-13.
By White:
*672the selling price, what you expected.
A Again we went into depth now on my expectations, reiterated essentially the advertisement. I discussed with him that I had two mortgages which constituted the $31,000, as I had taken a second mortgage out on the house. We discussed the expectations of the equity I had built up in the home. I spent a great deal of time asking Mr. White about his business, about receiving the amount of money.
Q All right, so in terms of figures, you've already told us that the advertised price was $58,500, and you had two mortgages for $31,000 and that you expected to be paid cash for the difference.
A Yes.
Q What was he saying to you about your terms?
A That that would fit into the amount of money that he was receiving from the sale of his restaurant, that that would not be a problem. . . .
Q All right. Who was present when these negotiations were going on?
A Lynne Alexander, Mr. White, Mrs. White and myself.
Verbatim Report of Proceedings, at 42-44.
By Miss Alexander:
Q All right. Would you tell the Court what negotiations you heard?
A Well, there was, you know, discussion of the amount that
*673Mr. White was to pay. It was $28,000, which he said that he had—this was mostly with Jim, that he was, you know, selling a restaurant that he was owner of, . . .
Q Did Mr. White tell you how much he was going to get for the sale of the Ben Paris restaurant?
A Yes, he said that the sale would—what do you call it, the profit, would be $100,000 and his share would be $50,000.
Q Did Mr. White tell you what he was going to do with his share?
A Well, after he paid the money for the house, then he also had plans for putting in a swimming pool and finishing the basement, which was not finished at that time.
Q Now—
A He said he wanted to get rid of all his money from the sale for tax purposes.
Q Now, did you ever hear Mr. White tell Mr. Violante specifically how much cash he was going to give him?
A $28,000.
Verbatim Report of Proceedings, at 123-24.
The remainder of the record in both Violante's civil case against White to recover the property and the State's criminal case against White for perjury show Violante gullible and honest and White clever and dishonest.
The next day, June 6, White offered to and did prepare a warranty deed, tax statement and a promissory note for $28,000. On June 7, the two met at a notary and signed these documents; Violante kept the deed and tax statement, White kept the promissory note. During the day Violante became apprehensive, sought a friend's advice and *674prepared a real estate contract calling for the $28,000 cash payment for equity. That evening the two met at Violante's request to review the contract. All of the documents except the promissory note, which White had "voided", were on the table. White agreed to the contract, signed it and took it home with him. After White left, Violante gathered up the papers—the warranty deed was gone! On June 9 White recorded the deed without Violante's knowledge and took possession of the house on the promise that he would pay $422 per month until the equity was paid in August from the Ben Paris sale. He paid neither the rent nor the equity and the civil action followed.
The majority erroneously puts White's statement in a vacuum; it must be viewed in the context of all the events. White's statement that "There was no provision for equity" is clearly false and self-serving. It was not literally, technically nor legally true. White tried, all along, to convince the court that there never had been a provision for equity. His statement, framed in the past tense, was made in furtherance of his goal to show they never discussed equity; it was not made in the narrow context to show that they did not discuss equity at the afternoon meeting. Violante's testimony exposes White's fabrication and directly contradicts White's statement under oath.
Because the perjury conviction is valid, I believe that the theft conviction should also be affirmed.