Court Opinion

ID: 9792230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:25:27.772763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:41.269435
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE BOTTOMLY:
I dissent.
The parties hereto were formerly husband and wife, and that was their status when they contracted to purchase the property here in dispute for the total price of $900.
The trial judge found that plaintiff, the then husband, paid down on the purchase price the sum of $380 out of his own funds, and that the balance of $520 was paid by defendant from the joint funds of plaintiff and defendant; that the parties originally intended to purchase the property jointly and they paid for it jointly; that because of plaintiff’s apprehension over difficulties that might originate through plaintiff’s former wife, the parties agreed in December 1949, that the defendant would take title in her own name.
This state of facts certainly negatives any idea that plaintiff was bestowing a gift of his interest in the property to defendant. We must presume the evidence supported the foregoing findings of fact. R.C.M. 1947, section 93-1301-3. Under such facts the statutory presumption prevails.
R.C.M. 1947, section 86-103, provides: “Where a transfer of real property is made to one person, and the consideration thereof is paid by or for another, a trust is presumed to result in favor of the person by or for whom such payment is made. ’ ’
The trial judge correctly found and stated: ‘1 They were paying for it together, and the statutory presumption would require the finding that each took a half-interest in the property. ’ ’ Under the facts and findings in this ease, the foregoing is the proper finding. The findings of the facts herein are so entirely different from the facts in Baird v. Baird, 125 Mont. 122, 232 *316Pac. (2d) 348, that the same has no application herein. The same may be said of the other cases cited by respondent.
Defendant contends that plaintiff is not entitled to relief because he does not come into equity with clean hands.
The facts, as found by the trial judge, do not warrant the-application of that doctrine, which becomes operative only when a complainant must depend on his own improper conduct to-establish his rights against the other parties to the suit. Compare Parker v. Parker, 56 Iowa 111, 8 N.W. 806: Cirillo v. Cirillo, 77 R.I. 223, 74 A. (2d) 440, 76 A. (2d) 71; Hudson v. White, 17 R.I. 519, 23 A. 57. It is well-settled that only a creditor can set up- such a claim. The transaction was valid as between the parties.
I would reverse the judgment and direct a judgment be entered declaring plaintiff owner of a one-half interest in the property and in all rentals collected by, or owing for, the occupancy of the property.