Court Opinion

ID: 9542356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:33:27.713703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:47.450927
License: Public Domain

Finley, J.
(dissenting) —Plaintiff-appellant Beatrice Humphries brought this suit seeking to establish a one-half interest in the estate of Edward Humphries, deceased. *394The principal asset of the estate is the home, valued at $42,-000, in which the couple lived at the time of Mr. Humphries’ death.
The couple lived together for 13 years as man and wife, though in fact they were not legally married. Both Edward and Beatrice Humphries were quite amenable to this living arrangement, and, knowing the relationship to be meretricious, they held themselves out to the world as husband and wife. The adult children of each (by former marriages) knew of the relationship and, apparently, registered no disapproval. In fact, several are on record as to approval and have expressed the view that the arrangement was helpful to both parties. Edward and Beatrice Humphries, who apparently had deep feeling and regard for each other, contributed to the relationship to the full extent of their ability in and out of the home. Many specific instances are pointed to in the record on behalf of Beatrice Humphries which show the contribution of part-time earnings during the limited times when she worked outside the home, instances of helping Mr. Humphries, a retired bricklayer, in small week-end bricklaying or fireplace construction jobs, and extensive efforts in improving and landscaping the home in which they lived.
Perhaps it could be said that the financial contributions of the plaintiff were in general not unlike or significantly more extensive than those of the average non-employed wife in a legally consummated marriage. Much of her effort was expended in the home, keeping house, cooking and managing household affairs. In fact, the trial court found that there was no evidence that Beatrice Humphries had contributed any money to the acquisition or development of the home or other estate assets. However, the record shows that the efforts of the plaintiff had a very significant impact on the net worth of the decedent. When he met the plaintiff in the latter part of 1948, or early part of 1949, he owned a home valued at $4,000, and had approximately $50 in the bank. The plaintiff painted this house, inside and out, and redecorated it with wallpaper. It was sold in 1952 to the son of decedent for $6,000, but *395the decedent and the plaintiff continued to live in it for another year. In 1954, another house was purchased for $3,400, and the title was taken in the name of Edward J. Humphries. Again the plaintiff repainted and wallpapered and renovated the house, which was appraised among the estate’s assets at the value of $7,000.
In 1952, the decedent and the plaintiff decided to build a duplex on a steep lot overlooking Lake Washington in Seattle. They intended to sell the building upon its completion. In 1952, the decedent invested $16,500 in the building and land; and in 1955, he invested another $17,815.54. Again title was taken by the decedent, Edward J. Humphries. The plaintiff devoted constant efforts to converting the steep lot to a livable site. She helped her husband move rocks to construct a rockery 100 feet long and 7 to 8 feet high. She added 5 yards of “fill” to the front yard, doing most of the work during the absence of her husband. She also helped to move concrete slabs and poured concrete to make a retaining wall. The rockery and retaining walls alone involved a year of work. The plaintiff helped terrace the land with old tires, rocks, and concrete; she helped reconstruct the retaining wall after it washed out. When the sewer was installed, she moved dirt “just like a man.” She did most of the painting, inside and out, and sanded and finished the cupboards and mahogany paneling. The building contained five brick fireplaces, and had a brick exterior except on the ends of the house. The plaintiff was a hod carrier for her “husband” while he constructed the fireplaces and the exterior walls. Although there is still more work to be done in the basement, the building is appraised presently at $42,000.
The trial court awarded the entire estate to the intestate heirs of Edward Humphries, after denying the claim of the plaintiff regarding the assets as to which legal title happened to be in the name of Edward Humphries at the time of his death. The plaintiff did receive certain personal items and house furnishings, and a one-half interest in a note wherein she and Edward Humphries were named as co-owners. The trial court apparently reasoned that any *396assets acquired during the relationship as to which title was taken originally in the name of Edward Humphries were his separate property, apparently, at the precise instant the title was lodged in his name, irrespective of any other considerations. It was further reasoned that the assets thereafter remained the property of Mr. Humphries until and unless he, himself, had performed some universally recognized, or lesser but formalistic and orthodox, legal ritual or act reserved especially for effecting a change in the record title and ownership of real property. This, of course, ignores or refuses to accept and give effect to such orthodox and judicially recognized concepts as (a) constructive trusts, (b) joint ventures or quasi partnerships, (c) quasi contracts, and (d) implied contracts. And, of course, these concepts accord legal validity and effect to the conduct and acts of individuals not involving the formal execution of solemn written documents. In any event, the trial judge went on to say:
You mean if this gentleman intended to give this lady the property, that is all it takes? I don’t understand your statement that I have any right to make an equitable distribution. I have no rights at all as I see it. I merely declare what the property was at the time of acquisition or find that a transfer was made. I have no right to equitably distribute it.
The trial judge actually found that the major assets in the estate were accumulated and the house was built during the period Beatrice and Edward Humphries lived together. It was further found that it was impossible to trace the source of the funds used to accumulate the estate. Therefore, the rule under which the trial court purported to decide the case — i.e., that the ownership of property is established at the exact time it is acquired — leaves unanswered the main and essential questions: Who acquired it? How, and with what funds, and from what sources? As the source of the funds could not be traced, and the plaintiff produced evidence that she contributed her efforts toward the accumulation of the estate, the determination that the plaintiff had no interest would seem to have been based upon a *397conclusive presumption that, at least in the setting of an unmarried relationship, property is acquired and subsequently owned by the one in whose name, by happenstance or otherwise, legal title is originally taken. But we have held that such a conclusive presumption is to be indulged only in the total absence of other contrariwise evidence. I am convinced such a conclusive presumption was improperly applied in the present case. Whatever uncertainties may have existed in this area of the law following and related to the decision of this court in Creasman v. Boyle, 31 Wn.2d 345, 196 P.2d 835 (1948), were laid to rest in Poole v. Schrichte, 39 Wn.2d 558, 236 P.2d 1044 (1951), where we said:
to say that we held in Creasman v. Boyle, supra, that, if a man and woman had lived together in a relationship known by both of them to be meretricious, the courts will leave them in the position in which they placed themselves, and that it will be conclusively presumed that they intended to dispose of their property exactly as they did dispose of it, is to distort our holding in that case and to ignore the words which we have italicized, “in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.” (Italics mine.)
The significance of the location of legal title in the name of one or the other party should not be enhanced or depreciated simply because the two people are involved in a meretricious relationship. The absence of a legal and subsisting marriage simply results in the inapplicability of the community property law of this state. It should be obvious that Beatrice Humphries can predicate no rights specifically on community property principles of law. However, the ineligibility of the plaintiff for the benefits and safeguards of our community property system should not, through the creation of legal fictions exalted to the status of legal presumptions, deprive her of comparable, even identical, interests and rights afforded under other recognized and operative principles of our legal system. These are based upon somewhat different, but nevertheless approved and accepted, equity considerations, concepts and doctrine respecting the alienation of property, its owner*398ship and effective or enforceable title thereto. The illegal or perhaps immoral nature of the social relationship of Beatrice and Edward does not as a dreaded terminal disease infect, devitalize and destroy the legal claims or rights acquired or created during the relationship. The courts have the power, indeed I believe a clear duty, to consider and settle the questions set before them concerning the property rights of such persons. Poole v. Schrichte, supra; and see opinion concurring specially in West v. Knowles, 50 Wn.2d 311, 315, 311 P.2d 689 (1957). The “washing of hands” device seemed to have satisfied Pontius Pilate. However, the device was simply an effort to put responsibility aside. It failed then to meet and provide real solutions for the real problems of real people. The technique fails today.
In the present case the record shows that two people joined their efforts under an arrangement approximating in a definite sense a form of partnership. Although devoid of the requisite legal as well as religious formalities inherent in a marital relationship, the case of Beatrice and Edward may be a somewhat more frequent type of association or relationship between men and women than is generally admitted. The male partner was essentially the bread winner of the combination, about the same as in the case of most married couples; and his income-producing efforts took place outside of the home. The efforts of the female partner embraced those usually associated with the distaff side and were expended in the home. Thus, the contribution of each party to such an arrangement or partnership was by each one apparently treated or understood to be roughly equal in significance. Certainly this is the case and it can be said to be true where the arrangement is more orthodox in terms of form and involves marriage. In addition to mentioning the hard back-breaking kind of labor and work contributed by Beatrice Humphries, it can be said that had her efforts as the distaff member of the partnership not been expended in the homemaking chores, it would have been necessary for Mr. Humphries to employ someone and to expend some portion of his earnings to provide the housekeeping services. In Knoll v. Knoll, *399104 Wash. 110, 176 Pac. 22, 11 A.L.R. 1391 (1918), such a relationship was treated as a partnership as to all property acquired by the joint efforts of the parties. In considering what comprises joint efforts, this court said:
In addition to this, the appellant performed all the duties of a housewife faithfully. So long as the parties lived together as husband and wife, both labored in their respective fields, and the property acquired during this time was the result of their joint efforts.
In the instant case the plaintiff has shown that the parties entered into an arrangement whereby an agreeable division of labor was made. Property was acquired and held during a substantial period of time when the woman expended efforts in the home and gave substantial and valuable help in making capital improvements respecting the property in question. The majority is indubitably willing to accept the difference in the contributions of the male and the female members of a marital relationship, partnership, or community, without substantial prejudicial effort upon the interests of the distaff member. But, a big distinction, which I think is an unrealistic, unwarranted and unnecessary one, is made and emphasized strongly by the majority relative to the unmarried partnership of the couple involved in the instant case. Glossed over completely is the fact that the contributions of the woman were not only equal but much greater in the instant case than those in most marital community situations. A prima facie case was made out which satisfied any burden placed on the plaintiff under Creasman, supra. The Creasman-like conclusive presumption was rebutted, placing some responsibility on the defendant to counter the prima facie case by a showing that both parties intended ownership to follow title. In other words, when a showing is made, as in the instant case, that two people worked together, lived together as husband and wife, behaved socially as husband and wife, and otherwise held themselves out as husband and wife, then the conclusive presumption of Creasman is of dubious applicability. The home property, or house, involved herein is, at least in a prima facie sense, a partner*400ship asset. This main partnership asset in the instant case certainly was used, and I daresay was held in a seemingly quasi-common ownership; and the party who claims by reason of paper title should be put to his proof to rebut the prima facie case by a showing that the parties intended ownership to coincide with the paper title.
As we said in Creasman v. Boyle, supra, when there is no evidence concerning the efforts and contributions of the parties, and there are no other facts from which an arrangement or agreement as to common ownership could be reasonably inferred, it is necessary to presume that legal title is rightfully where it stands. However, such a conclusive presumption is tentative at best and disappears with the introduction of evidence reasonably tending to establish a contrary intent of the parties. When the nature of the relationship is such as to lead a reasonable man to conclude that the parties intended to share in the property accumulated while they lived together, no conclusive legal presumption should dictate a contrary result.
The majority places much emphasis upon the nonexistence of a formal and explicit contract, partnership agreement, or other solemn legal document. But, risking repetition, it seems to me this completely overlooks concepts such as quasi contracts, implied contracts, constructive trusts, joint ventures, and others employed historically by the courts under equity considerations and principles to ameliorate the harshness of strictly legal doctrines and considerations. In support of the position taken the majority cites Jennings v. D’Hooghe, 25 Wn.2d 702, 172 P.2d 189 (1946), and Bicknell v. Guenther, 65 Wn.2d 749, 399 P.2d 598 (1965). But the error implicit in the unnecessarily harsh doctrinaire reasoning in these two decisions is not justification for the perpetuation of comparable error in the instant case. See and compare the comment re Bicknell v. Guenther, supra, in Washington Case Law, 40 Wash. L. Rev. 367.
Before concluding this opinion, perhaps mention should be made of the obvious, namely: The legislature has provided for the imposition of criminal sanctions respecting the conduct of parties to a meretricious relationship. Articu*401lated more dramatically, and more prejudicially stated, the legislature has made “illegal cohabitation” a crime; RCW 9.79.120 and RCW 9.92.020. But the legislature has not provided that the indicated conduct has broader implications affecting the right to acquire interests or title to property and to alienate and transfer such rights. From the action and inaction of the legislative branch, it does not follow logically and immutably that the judicial branch either should or must take the step that the legislature has not taken as a matter of imperative social policy. In other words, should the courts penalize more severely than the legislature the female partner or associate in the “unmarried” but long-standing and mutually agreeable and acceptable male-female relationship in the instant case? Should the civil side of the law castigate her as a “fallen woman” by strict Victorian standards and by the same standards arbitrarily deprive her of rights to acquire interests in and title to property, when friends, family and neighbors certainly have not been so inclined?
In my judgment the trial court should be reversed and the case remanded with directions for further proceedings respecting the right of the plaintiff to share in the estate commensurate with the intent of the parties and their contributions to the partnership inferred or implied from their conduct and activities over a period of 13 years. It has been noted hereinbefore that the defendant herein apparently relied exclusively on the conclusive presumption of Creasman that ownership as a matter of course follows paper title. However, under the facts and circumstances herein, this seems to me not enough to equate absolute legal ownership with mere paper title. Since the plaintiff has rebutted any “Creasman-like” conclusive presumption by presenting a prima facie case, the defendant has some burden of proving that the paper title reflects the intent of the parties. The defendant should be given the opportunity to present proof on remand to assure just disposition in this matter. If the defendant fails to do so, then the plaintiff’s prima facie case, as such, should go to the trier of fact. In this light the fact of paper title will *402be one element of proof; but it should not give rise to an iron clad conclusive presumption dictating and controlling decision and disposition respecting the property.
I would affirm the judgment awarding the plaintiff the one-half interest in the note upon which she was named as co-owner.