Dobbins v. Dexter Horton & Co.

• Citation: 113 P. 1088,62 Wash. 423
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 13 March 1911
• Parties: DOBBINS v. DEXTER HORTON & CO.

113 P. 1088

62 Wash. 423

DOBBINS v. DEXTER HORTON & CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 13, 1911

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Mitchell Gilliam Judge.

Action by Eva Ennis Dobbins against Dexter Horton & Co. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Peters & Powell and Marion Edwards, for appellant.

L. H Wheeler, for respondent.

PARKER J.

By this action plaintiff seeks to have her title to real property quieted as against a claim of lien thereon, made by the defendant under a judgment rendered in its favor in the superior court for King county against her husband upon a community debt. The question presented is whether or not the property involved is her separate property, and as such free from the lien of this judgment. The defendant has appealed from a decree adjudging the property to be plaintiff's separate property, and therefore not subject to the lien of the judgment.

In the year 1895 respondent entered into a contract for the purchase of a lot in Aberdeen, paying a portion of the purchase price in cash. She had been engaged in teaching some years previous to that time and had accumulated about $1,000. In June, 1896 she was married to D. N. Dobbins, and they have ever since been husband and wife. A few months after their arriage she made final payment upon the lot and procured a deed therefor in compliance with her contract. About this time she borrowed some money, securing it by a mortgage upon the lot. This mortgage and the note accompanying it were executed by both herself and husband. The money so borrowed by her she expended in the construction of a dwelling upon the lot, and probably paid a small balance therefrom upon the purchase price of the lot. This debt was thereafter paid by her in monthly payments from money earned by her in teaching covering a period of some four years following her marriage. There was practically noting furnished by the husband in either money or property towards the purchase of the lot or the making of the improvements thereon. He did furnish a very small quantity of lumber, but we regard that of no consequence in determining the question of his community interest in the property. In January, 1906, she wold this property, receiving therefor $1,783.35 after paying expenses incident to the sale. A short time before she received the money upon this sale she moved to Seattle and entered into a contract for the purchase of a house and lot which for convenience we will call the Eighteenth avenue place. She was to pay therefor $2,700 and assume a $3,000 mortgage already on the property. The husband had nothing whatever to do with this deal. When she received the proceeds of the Aberdeen property, she completed the purchase of the Eighteenth avenue place by paying all of the $2,700 in cash, save about $150, for which she gave her personal note. The money then paid by her in addition to the proceeds of the Aberdeen property was from her personal earnings, acquired either before or after marriage, which had been loaned by her in the meantime. She then received a deed for the Eighteenth avenue place, subject to the $3,000 mortgage. Thereafter she sold the Eighteenth avenue place, which sale netted her about $5,000; the purchaser assuming the mortgage thereon. Thereafter she purchased the property here involved, paying therefor $1,700 in cash and assuming a $3,000 mortgage thereon. This mortgage is still unpaid. Her husband had nothing whatever to do with this deal. The evidence convinces us that the husband has never made any material contributions towards the acquisition of any of these properties, and that all of them were acquired by respondent as the product of her personal earnings. Respondent claims that there was an agreement between herself and husband existing at all times since their marriage, to the effect that the personal earnings should be her separate property. She testified relative to this understanding as follows: 'Q. Have you talked with your husband something about this being your separate funds, this money that you received from teaching? A. Yes, sir. Q. What has been said by him in relation to that--that particular matter--of whether those funds should be your separate funds, or otherwise? A. There has never been any disagreement about it. It has always been conceded by Mr. Dobbins that it is my property; and my money is my own to do what I chose with it. Q. That this money that you got from teaching is your separate funds? A. Yes, sir. * * * Q. Now, as a matter of fact, there has never been any formal discussion between you as to who should control any moneys or any properties? A. Yes, sir; certainly. We have never had any written contract; but certainly I control my own money. He has never--Q. He has never asked for leave to control it, has he? A. Never. Q. It has just gone along as a matter of course that you received the income? A. He has frequently...