Adamson v. Adamson

• Decision Date: 23 October 1975
• Citation: 541 P.2d 460,273 Or. 382
• Parties: Margaret Ann ADAMSON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Inez T. ADAMSON and Nita M. Hunt, Defendants, and Joel F. Adamson, Defendant in Intervention-Appellant. . *
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 460

541 P.2d 460

273 Or. 382

Margaret Ann ADAMSON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Inez T. ADAMSON and Nita M. Hunt, Defendants and Joel F. Adamson, Defendant in Intervention-Appellant.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc. ^*

Argued and Submitted June 3, 1975.

Decided Oct. 23, 1975.

John L. Langslet, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Martin, Bischoff, Templeton & Biggs, Portland.

J. Robert Jordan, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Michael R. Jordan, and Jordan & Jordan, Portland.

BRYSON, Justice.

This is a suit to determine the equitable interest in a land sale contract between plaintiff, a named purchaser, and defendant-intervenor who obtained the interest of a named co-purchaser. The trial court decreed that plaintiff owned two-thirds and defendant-intervenor owned one-third of the equitable interest and ordered an accounting and sale of the parties' interests. The court also awarded attorney fees to plaintiff. Defendant-intervenor appeals.

This suit is essentially a family dispute wherein the parties seek judicial interpretation of events pertaining to the equitable interest of the parties in a fourplex apartment in Portland, Oregon. Plaintiff Margaret Adamson married Brian Adamson, the only child of Joel and Inez Adamson, ¹ in April of 1964. Thereafter, plaintiff and Brian, who were then living with Inez Adamson, Brian's mother, began searching for their own home in which to reside.

Brian located a fourplex for sale which he desired to purchase. He approached both of his parents to discuss the feasibility of purchasing the fourplex. After some discussion Brian, as sole purchaser, signed an earnest money agreement with the seller, Hunt. At the closing of the transaction and execution of the sales contract, Inez advanced the down payment of $5,000. A sales contract was prepared by the realtor at Brian's direction, which read in part:

'THIS CONTRACT, Made this 20th day of May, 1965, between Alden G. Hunt ² and Nita M. Hunt (husband and wife) hereinafter called the seller, and Brian J. Adamson and Margaret Adamson (husband and wife) and Inez T. Adamson, hereinafter called the buyer,

'WITNESSETH, That in consideration for the stipulations herein contained and the payments to be made as hereinafter specified, the seller hereby agrees to sell to the buyer and the buyer agrees to purchase from the seller the following described real estate * * *. (Description of property omitted.)

'* * *.

/s/ Brian J. Adamson (seal)

/s/ Margaret A. Adamson (seal)

/s/ Alden G. Hunt (seal)

/s/ Nita M. Hunt (seal)

/s/ Inez T. Adamson (seal)

_ _ (seal)'

Stated in chronological order, certain exhibits were received affecting the real property involved herein:

1. May 20, 1965: Execution of the contract to purchase by Margaret and Brian Adamson, husband and wife, and Inez Adamson;

2. April 14, 1972: Deed, Brian Adamson and plaintiff, Margaret Adamson, husband and wife, to Joel Adamson, Brian's father, of interest in fourplex;

3. June 12, 1972: Petition for divorce filed, Margaret Adamson v. Brian Adamson, praying that the plaintiff's and defendant's interests in the fourplex involved herein be set aside to petitioner as her sole property;

4. April 13, 1973: Divorce decree awarding petitioner, plaintiff herein, all right, title and interest of the parties in and to the fourplex;

5. October 9, 1973: This suit filed;

6. October 24, 1973: Deed, Inez T. Adamson to Joel, defendant-intervenor, of all of her interest in and to the fourplex.

Defendant first contends that, contrary to the executed land sale contract, plaintiff and Brian had no interest in the fourplex and the court erred in so finding. He argues that both plaintiff's and Brian's names were placed 'on the contract as a kind of 'insurance' if something happened to' Inez, Brian's mother; that plaintiff and Brian 'would receive one-half of Inez's interest if Inez died.'

We construe the contract and the parties' intentions in the light of circumstances existing at the time the contract was executed. Klimek v. Perisich, 231 Or. 71, 78, 371 P.2d 956 (1962); Erickson v. Grande Ronde Lbr. Co., 162 Or. 556, 580, 94 P.2d 139 (1939). The only witnesses called to explain the execution of the May 20, 1965, land sale contract were the immediate family members, Brian, Margaret, Inez and Joel Adamson. Mrs. Hunt, the seller, was not called to testify. The testimony is conflicting and confusing. Plaintiff testified that Brian's and her interest in the fourplex 'was given to us, as I understand it, for a wedding present and as a start in life, some place where we would have of our own.' She further testified that she understood that she had an 'owner's interest' in the fourplex. There is also testimony that Inez's name was added to the contract for the sole purpose of enabling Inez and her husband, Joel, to claim the tax benefits available to 'owners' of the fourplex. It is undisputed that Brian located the fourplex to purchase, signed the earnest money receipt, and that Brian and plaintiff signed as purchasers and obligated themselves to the terms of the contract. Brian and plaintiff moved into the fourplex and managed it for a period of two years before their matrimonial problems began.

Brian testified that the purchase was to have two purposes--to provide a place for plaintiff and him to live and to serve as an investment for Joel and Inez. He testified:

'A It was primarily a kind of insurance. I think I had at least one idea that may or may not have been incorrect, but as insurance if something happened to Mother, then it would--we wouldn't have, well, certain taxes, certain things that--there are certain things that must be gone through and paid if only one person's name is on a piece of property.'

Brian, who had signed the earnest money agreement, instructed the real estate agent to prepare the land sale contract and testified:

'Q * * * What did you tell them?

'A That Mother's name and Margaret's and mine.

'Q Were all to go in as buyers?

'A Yes.

'Q All right, fine. And so that Exhibit 1 insofar as the name of the buyers is concerned is prepared exactly as you directed that it be prepared, is that correct?

'A It was prepared to my satisfaction.'

The parties signed the land sale contract at the office of Pacific Title and Trust.

Inez testified on direct examination as follows:

'Q * * * Why was your name on the contract, Mrs. Adamson?

'A If anything happened to me, why, then Joel and Brian and Margaret would then get the house, the fourplex.

'Q By 'anything happened,' you mean if you had died?

'A If I would have died, yes.'

Further, Inez testified that 'they (plaintiff and Brian) signed it because I wanted it signed and that I asked them to.' However, in the original answer of Inez T. Adamson, she alleges that there was 'an agreement that if plaintiff improved the property by an amount equal to defendant Inez T. Adamson's investment, she (plaintiff) and Brian J. Adamson could acquire a one-half interest in said real property * * *.' ³

Finally, Joel Adamson ⁴ testified that the purchase was to be his ⁵ and Inez's investment and that this was discussed with plaintiff, who made no objections at the time. In regard to the three names on the sales contract, Joel responded:

'Q All right. Now, then, Mr. Adamson, why were the names of Brian and Margaret put on this contract, Exhibit 1?

'* * *.

'A Because I thought it would be well to have two names on the contract, and if something--if Inez should die, for example, then she would want her interest to go to Brian and Margaret.

'* * *.'

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court made findings and concluded that Inez Adamson had made the initial $5,000 down payment and stated:

'* * * (T)here is no question that this was going to be a home for the kids and they weren't just to collect the rent and cut the lawn. * * * (T)hey (plaintiff and Brian) were going to have a little place and they were going to amortize the mortgage with a contract and they would have something'; that Brian decided 'as an afterthought to include his mother's name as one of the vendees on that land sale contract, so there was an interest created in their respective names * * *.'

The court also questioned the credibility of Joel Adamson and stated:

'* * * Mr. Adamson, of course, Joel here, is a very bright and able man, but I think there was a lot of--he was--a lot of maneuvering around here. The Court seriously questions what happened.'

The court further found that plaintiff and Brian, together with Inez Adamson, were 'buyers' pursuant to the contract and were owners of an equitable interest in the fourplex; that Inez Adamson had conveyed her interest to defendant-intervenor.

Where only interested witnesses are called to testify, where the testimony is conflicting and the evidence is in equipoise, the credibility of witnesses is decisive and we give considerable weight to the findings of the trial court even though we try the case de novo. Royer v. Gailey, 252 Or. 369, 375, 449 P.2d 853 (1969); Cole v. Fogel et al., 210 Or. 257, 261, 310 P.2d 315 (1957); Kramer v. Taylor et al. and Trickel, 200 Or. 640, 647, 266 P.2d 709 (1954); Bogle v. Paulson, 185 Or. 211, 228, 201 P.2d 733 (1949); Kallstrom v. Kallstrom, 265 Or. 481, 485, 509 P.2d 1195 (1973).

We have reviewed all of the testimony and exhibits and although it is conflicting, we conclude that the evidence adduced demonstrates that plaintiff and Brian had an equitable interest in the fourplex as set forth in the land sale contract dated May 20, 1965.

The defendant-intervenor also contends tht the trial court erred in decreeing that the deed by plaintiff and Brian J. Adamson of April 14, 1972, to Joel Adamson conveying their interest in and to the four-plex real property was void and of no legal effect. He argues that the deed was given for an adequate consideration as stated in the deed, '$850.00' and other property or value.

Plainti...