Court Opinion

ID: 9790156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:47:17.452988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:26.720825
License: Public Domain

PORTER, Justice,
with whom TAYLOR, Justice, concurs (dissenting).
I feel compelled to dissent from the conclusion reached in the majority opinion. I feel that the family relation doctrine is not applicable herein. Appellant, by her - pleading and proof, does not attempt to recover remuneration for services rendered to another member of the household *55She is not asking for wages for labor performed. Her pleading and proof are that she and her son contributed to a common fund and that by their continued efforts and by the use of the common fund the same was augmented until it became of substantial amount. And that such common fund and the property acquired with ■same were, for convenience, carried in the name of the son. Appellant asked for an accounting of the property acquired with ■such common fund and that her son be declared to hold the same in trust for herself and her son and asked for her proportionate share of such property. If there had been no accumulations in such common fund, appellant does not attempt to plead or prove that she would be entitled to receive anything from the son.
The gist of the decision by the trial court is found in Paragraphs XXII and XXIII of the Findings of Fact which read as follows:
“XXII.
“That at no time has there existed any partnership agreement between Paul H. Watts, Dora Watts Shurrum and/or Paul S. Watts, either expressed or implied; that at no time has there existed any joint venture agreement between Paul H. Watts, Dora Watts Shurrum and/or Paul S. Watts, either expressed or implied; that, at no time has there existed any agreement of employment wherein Paul H. Watts contracted for the personal services of Dora Watts Shurrum and/or Paul S. Watts, either expressed or implied.
“XXIII.
“That there were no act or acts performed on the part of Dora Watts Shurrum, Paul S. Watts or Paul H. Watts between February 1933, to the present time which could or would create any express trust or implied trust for the benefit of Dora Watts Shurrum or Paul S. Watts upon any of the property, real or personal, acquired in the name of Paul H. Watts between February, 1933, and the present time.”
There is no claim on the part of the appellant that any partnership agreement or any joint venture agreement or any agreement of employment existed between the parties, as mentioned in Paragraph XXII. I am of the opinion that the finding in Paragraph XXIII that there was not any trust arising from the acts of the parties in favor of appellant, is a conclusion of law not supported by and contrary to the evidence.
The underlying facts in this cause are simple and are not seriously controverted. The father, mother and son united then-efforts in 1933 for the purpose of making a livelihood. The parents had $300 and the son had an old Chevrolet automobile. *56This arrangement was continued until the death of the father, and thereafter was continued by the mother and son. In the course of their efforts a surplus common fund was created. By their continued efforts and the use of their surplus fund over the years, a substantial amount of real and personal property was acquired, including a home and a cold storage plant in Buhl, Idaho.
For convenience all funds and property were carried generally in the name of the son although at times the bank account was carried as a joint bank account between the father and son and thereafter between the mother and son. These joint bank accounts are evidence tending to support the conclusion that appellant was not a mere housekeeper but was recognized by respondent as having an interest in the common funds.
The mother contributed to this common fund more than the mere matter of keeping house for her son. She raised and peddled garden vegetables and fruit. She milked cows and sold dairy products. She raised, dressed and peddled approximately 400 chickens per year. 'She sold eggs from house to house. She labored in the fields on the farms. She worked in the cold storage plant not as an employee but as an owner. All her earnings and income were turned over to the son and were placed in the common fund.
When the mother was 76 years of age and the son 52 years of age, he got married on December 17, 1954. This marriage brought about the dissolution of the common home of the mother and son and the mother moved or was removed into housekeeping rooms. The fact that the mother-later married has no bearing on the merits of this action.
The fact that appellant was unable to show precisely what amount she had contributed to the common fund is not decisive against her in this cause. The trial court should have determined as nearly as possible under the evidence the percentage which the mother and son each contributed to the fund and should have ordered the properties divided accordingly.
I am of the opinion that the trial court erred under the evidence in deciding that the son did not hold a portion of the common fund in trust for his mother. The cause should be remanded to the trial court for further proceeding in accordance with these views.