Connell v. Hays

• Decision Date: 11 June 1963
• Docket Number: No. 50995,50995
• Citation: 122 N.W.2d 341,255 Iowa 261
• Parties: Gertrude CONNELL, Appellee, v. Chester HAYS, as Executor of the Estate of Meigs Hays, Deceased, Hazel Hays, Olive Hays, Audrey Hays, Marie Brewer and Chester Hays, Appellants.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 341

122 N.W.2d 341

255 Iowa 261

Gertrude CONNELL, Appellee, v. Chester HAYS, as Executor of the Estate of Meigs Hays, Deceased, Hazel Hays, Olive Hays, Audrey Hays, Marie Brewer and Chester Hays, Appellants.

No. 50995.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 11, 1963.

A. Wayne Eckhardt and Frank Drake, Muscatine, for appellants.

Stanley, Bloom & Mealy, Muscatine, for appellee.

MOORE, Justice.

Plaintiff alleges in Division I of her petition that 14 years prior to the death of Meigs Hays she made an oral contract with him that if she would continue as his housekeeper he would convey to her the home property at 109 West Sixth Street in Muscatine, that she performed her part of the agreement and prays for specific performance from defendants who are heirs at law and beneficiaries under his last will and testament. In Division II she asks recovery on quantum meruit and in Divisions III, IV and V for sums of money she claims she loaned him during his lifetime. Defendants' answer admits decedent in August 1947 requested plaintiff to move into his home to act as housekeeper and plaintiff did so pursuant to decedent's request, alleges she was paid in full for services rendered decedent and denies all other allegations of plaintiff's petition. After trial the court found for plaintiff on Division I and entered a decree ordering specific performance. Defendants have appealed.

Defendants rely on three propositions for reversal and present them in the form of questions.

1. Was there competent material or relevant evidence to establish a parol agreement upon the part of Meigs Hays to convey the real estate to plaintiff in consideration of her continuing on as his housekeeper, and did the proof with respect thereto reach the requirement of law?

2. Was the evidence introduced by defendants such as to lift the prohibition of Code section 622.4 I.C.A. and permit plaintiff in rebuttal to testify as to personal transactions and communications she allegedly had with decedent?

3. Is plaintiff bound by the admissions made in her pleadings?

We will consider them in the order propounded.

I. On trial the parties stipulated Meigs Hays, 77 died June 26, 1961, the title holder of the real estate described as Lot 3, in Block 122, in the City of Muscatine, known as 109 West Sixth Street, where he had resided at all times material to this case, and it was worth between ten and thirteen thousand dollars at the time of his death. Also that defendants as sisters and brother of Meigs Hays and sole devisee under his last will and testament voluntarily appeared in court and by their asttorneys, who also represented the executor of the Meigs Hays estate, and agreed the court be permitted to adjudicate their rights in the case. (Some, if not all, were nonresidents of Iowa.)

Mrs. Hazel Carlson, decedent's friend since 1910, testified; she knew plaintiff was his housekeeper from 1947 until his death in 1961; decedent had a bedroom upstairs; plaintiff and her second husband since 1950 slept downstairs; they lived as one family; plaintiff did housework including washing and ironing for Meigs Hays; plaintiff bought, paid for and cooked food and meals for him; that on her many visits with him, he told her several times Gertrude was to have the home when he was through with it. The last tiame he made that statement was about two years before his death. She stated Meigs Hays never mentioned any payment to Gertrude other than giving her the house.

Part of her evidence was:

'Q. Now, in this conversation in 1948 or 1949, did Meigs Hays say anything about Gertrude and the disposition of his house at 109 W. Sixth in Muscatine? A. Yes, he did. He told me, in front of Margaret, that he had fixed the house so it would be Gertrude's when he was gone.

'Q. And did he say why Gertrude was to have the house? A. Those were his words. He said she made him the best home he ever had had. That's just the words he said. * * *

'Q. Do you recall a later conversation with Meigs Hays about the upstairs apartment in the Hays home. A. Yes.

'Q. And on that occasion what did he say to you about the house? A. He said he had--was making the upstairs into an apartment, so that when he was gone Gertrude would have an income, that there would be an income for her.

'Q. And did he say anything at that time about Gertrude's home after Meigs Hays' death? A. Well, he said it was to be Gertrude's when he was dead; that the home was to be hers; the house was to be left to her.'

She stated that on one occasion Meigs Hays, when referring to fixing over the bathroom and kitchen said: 'I don't know too much about it. I left it up to Gertrude because it will be hers. So I let her fix it, let her have the say of it.'

Mrs. Josephine Van Dyke, a friend of Meigs Hays since 1927, testified when the apartment was being made in the house decedent told her he wanted to see that Gertrude had some kind of an income after his death and that the house was to be hers. Also that he made statements at numerous times, including the spring of 1960, that Gertrude was just like a daughter and the house would be hers when he died. These statements on several occasions were made in plaintiff's presence.

Dr. George A. Blackwood, friend and fishing partner of decedent, stated decedent told him Gertrude and Ralph (her second husband) were not to be paid but they were to be taken care of and that he had made arrangements for them to have the home. He testified he was sure decedent told him Gertrude was to pay part of the siding.

Mrs. George A. Blackwood testified decedent made statements at various times that he was fixing the house up for Gertrude, she was paying part of the siding and sidewalk, and the house was to be hers upon his death.

Checks showing payment by plaintiff for siding and sidewalk are in the record.

Dennis K. Frey testified that while on a fishing trip with decedent in 1954 or 55, Mr. Hays said he was very fortunate to have such friends as the Connells who would look after him as they did, and he would see they were taken care of for what they had put out for him in the years they had taken care of him. Frey stated Mrs. Connell took care of the residence as if it were her own place.

Another witness testified that on March 3, 1956 he installed an iron railing at the home and that plaintiff paid him $30.00 by check (Plaintiff's Exhibit 4).

Some of these witnesses and others describe the services of plaintiff, including washing and ironing decedent's clothes, papering the apartment and driving him to Davenport many times. Plaintiff's services as a housekeeper were estimated to be worth $35.00 per week plus living quarters. The meals furnished decedent were estimated to be worth $3.50 per day. The record discloses decedent often stated there was no reason to do anything for his relatives as they never did anything for him. Decedent's will was executed in 1944.

Defendant Chester K. Hays, decedent's brother and executor of the estate of Meigs Hays, testified a friendly relationship existed between the brothers and that decedent frequently visited at his home. He identified a series of checks written by decedent to plaintiff starting in April 1955 and continuing at about one each month until the time of decedent's death. The ranged from $12.50 to $49.40 and most ended in an odd number of cents. On many the notation 'utilities' was written.

He stated about four weeks after his brother's funeral, in the presence of Attorney Drake and his sister Audrey M. Hays, he had a conversation with plaintiff. He testified:

'Well, Audrey asked her what arrangements they had there, and she said that Meigs furnished the house and all the utilities and paid the taxes, and they boarded him for his room--for board and room.

'Q. Is that your answer to the question, that they boarded--they boarded him for whose board and room? A. For his board and room he paid everything.

'Q. And in the conversation did Mrs. Gertrude Connell tell you what she was to do with respect to what she was to furnish, if anything? A. She was to furnish his board and room, with them living there.'

Defendant Audrey M. Hays testified regarding that conversation:

'Q. And what was the conversation with respect to the financial arrangement that was had between Mr. Meigs Hays and Mrs. Connell, if you remember? A. Well, Mr. Drake informed her that he came up--or we came up to take an inventory of things that belonged to Meigs, and we sat down at the kitchen table and she listed the things in the house which he said--which she said were his. And after that, why I said to her 'How many years have you lived in this house?' She said 'Fourteen. About fourteen.' I said, 'Who paid the taxes on this house?' She said 'He did.' I said 'Who paid the utilities and the fuel and the telephone and all the other incidentals?' She said, 'He did.'

'She said they had never paid rent. I don't recall that anything was discussed about the groceries.

'Q. You don't remember about that? A. No, I don't recall. But--But she said that he paid all the bills, and he had his board and his room upstairs, and there was a back stairway leading from the kitchen up to his room.'

She also testified that several years before her brother's death plaintiff said they had tried to buy the house from Meigs but he did not want to sell it.

A realtor expressed his opinion the fair rental of the downstairs with utilities furnished was $85.00 per month.

Over plaintiff's objection that any statements made to defendants' witness H. H. Holliday by decedent were self-serving the trial court permitted him to testify decedent told him he rented his house to Mr. and Mrs. Connell for his board and room, and he was to furnish heat. The trial court considered this testimony in his findings. In argument plaintiff contends this was error. We need not decide the question. Plaintiff prevailed. The great weight of the evidence is to the contrary. If error it was without prejudice.

On...