Clark v. Krogh
| Decision Date | 21 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | 44361. |
| Citation | 280 N.W. 635,225 Iowa 479 |
| Parties | CLARK v. KROGH. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; F. H. Rice, Judge.
This action involves a claim in probate against the estate of C H. Krogh, deceased. The action was tried before the court without a jury. The court found in favor of claimant and entered judgment against the defendant in the sum of $4,027.50. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Jepson, Hatfield & Jepson, of Sioux City, for appellant.
Naglestad, Pizey & Johnson, of Sioux City, for appellee.
Claimant is the daughter of decedent, and the claim filed by her is for board, lodging, and care furnished decedent for eight or ten years prior to his death. Claimant lived with her parents in their home on a farm until her marriage in 1907, at which time she and her husband moved to Utica, New York, where they resided in a home purchased by them until 1919. Claimant and her family then returned to Iowa at the request of claimant's mother who wrote her " to come home to be near her because she was so poorly."
On their return they lived in a small house for about two years, when they moved into her father's home at Sergeant Bluff, Iowa, and helped take care of her mother. Her mother died in 1922, and claimant and her family continued living in the same house until decedent's death in 1934, at the age of 74 years. After claimant's return to Iowa, they purchased a small house in which they lived for about two years prior to moving into her father's home. After her mother's death, and in 1924, the decedent conveyed his home to the claimant in exchange for the house they purchased shortly after their return to Iowa.
The services for which compensation is claimed are alleged to have been performed during the period between 1922 and 1934, during all of which time decedent had been living with and cared for by claimant.
Appellant contends that plaintiff cannot recover from decedent's estate because the decedent lived with the claimant as a member of her family, and that no implied agreement to pay for her services has been established in this case. The undisputed evidence shows that no express promise to pay for such services was ever made by decedent. The case therefore turns upon the question whether or not an implied agreement arose under the facts and circumstances in this case under which it can be said that decedent intended to pay for the services received, and that claimant expected to receive remuneration therefor.
It is conceded that this action having been tried to a court, sitting without a jury, the court's finding has the same force and effect as the finding of a jury insofar as the facts are concerned. Appellant contends, however, that the court erred in its finding of facts, because the evidence is insufficient to warrant its finding; that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the allowance of the claim, and that if the matter had been tried before a jury it would have become the court's duty to have sustained a motion for a directed verdict. This is the only question in the case.
Appellee contends that there was evidence in the record tending to support the court's finding and that the judgment of the court should therefore be affirmed.
Appellant contends that a family relation existed between claimant and decedent during all of the time such services were performed; that the claimant failed to show any intention on the part of the decedent to pay for the services rendered; or that there was any expectation on her part to receive any remuneration therefor; that claimant failed to show that the services were not rendered gratuitously because of the family relationship between decedent and claimant under the rule that reciprocal services rendered by and between members of a family are presumed to be gratuitous unless there is an implied agreement to pay therefor.
Claimant's eleven-year old daughter had been attending school in Utica, New York, up to the time they left there, was then half-way through the fourth grade and lost a half a year when they returned to Sergeant Bluff, Iowa. Houses were scarce there at that time, and claimant and her family moved in with her parents for three or four months when they found a vacant house and moved in. About four months afterward claimant purchased a small house from her father and moved into it and lived there for about two years. Her mother was sick in 1921 and during that year, at her parents' request, she and her family moved into her parents' home, which was larger than the small house in which they had been living. The mother died in 1922, after which claimant and her family continued living in her father's house until 1924 when they purchased it by trading their small home for it, and from that time the father continued living with appellee and was cared for in her home until his death in 1934.
Without setting out the evidence in detail, it is sufficient to say that there is testimony in the record tending to show that the appellee and her family left her home in New York and returned to Iowa in 1919 at the request of her mother because of her illness. The testimony tends to show that before the mother died in 1922, appellee and her family were asked by her parents to move into her father's home, which was remodeled to serve her family. In 1921 claimant and her family moved into the larger house at her parents' request to better care for her mother until her death in 1922. In 1924 the father traded the house in which they were then living to his daughter. It appears that after 1924 the home in which claimant and her family were living belonged to the claimant, and thereafter she continued to furnish her father room, board, and care in his illness until his death.
Appellant contends that, under the rule of law in this state, reciprocal services rendered by and between members of a family are presumed to be gratuitous, and unless the evidence shows that they were rendered under such circumstances that there was an intention between the parties that there was to be a remuneration therefor, appellee cannot recover. Such is the rule of law in this state, but an express promise need not be shown. Scully v. Scully's Ex'r, 28 Iowa 548; Snyder v. Nixon, 188 Iowa 779, 176 N.W. 808; McGarvy v. Roods, 73 Iowa 363, 35 N.W. 488.
In McGarvy v. Roods, 73 Iowa 363, loc. cit. 365, 366, 35 N.W. 488, loc. cit. 489 in discussing this question the court said:
Although such a family relationship has been shown to exist between the parties as to warrant the presumption that no remuneration was expected, such presumption will not prevail if it appears from the facts and circumstances in the case that both parties expected or intended that remuneration should be paid for the services performed. Snyder v. Nixon, 188 Iowa 779, 176 N.W. 808; Marietta v. Marietta, 90 Iowa 201, 57 N.W. 708; In re Estate of Bishop, 130 Iowa 250, 106 N.W....
To continue reading
Request your trial