Doyle v. Langdon

• Citation: 141 P. 352,80 Wash. 175
• Decision Date: 25 June 1914
• Docket Number: 11758.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: DOYLE v. LANGDON.

141 P. 352

80 Wash. 175

DOYLE v. LANGDON.

No. 11758.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 25, 1914

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; R. B. Albertson Judge.

Action by Alice C. Doyle against W. E. Langdon. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Sherwood & Mansfield, of Everett, for appellant.

Walter S. Fulton, of Seattle, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

On November 29, 1909, Katherine F. Langdon died intestate in King county, Wash., leaving an estate, situated in part in King county and in part in Snohomish county consisting of real and personal property. Letters of administration on her estate were issued to W. E. Langdon, as her surviving husband, on December 13, 1909. On the same day the administrator filed the statutory affidavit of heirs averring therein that he, as the surviving husband of the deceased, whose place of residence was at Seattle, Wash., and the appellant Alice C. Doyle, as her mother, whose place of residence was at Chicago, Ill., were the sole heirs of the deceased's estate. Due notice to creditors was given, and the administration of the estate was proceeded with regularly otherwise, until February 27, 1911, at which time the administrator filed his final account with the estate together with a petition for distribution. In this petition the administrator averred that the property of the estate was the community property of himself and his deceased wife, and that he was the sole heir and distributee thereof. April 3, 1911, was fixed by the court for settling the final account and for a hearing on the petition, of which time the statutory notice was regularly given. No appearance was made on the day appointed for the hearing by any one claiming to be interested in the estate, and on that day the court entered a decree approving the final account and awarding the property to the administrator as the surviving husband of the deceased, reciting in the decree that the property of the estate was community property.

The present action was begun by Alice C. Doyle, on August 17, 1912, to set aside the decree of distribution and for an award to her of an undivided half interest in the property. In her complaint she alleged that the property of the estate was the separate property of Katherine F. Langdon; that she was the mother of the deceased, and a coheir to her estate with the administrator W. E. Langdon; and that she had been deprived of her interest therein by the fraud and deceit of the administrator. The administrator answered the allegations of the complaint by a general denial, and on the issues thus framed a trial was had before the court as a cause of equitable cognizance. No formal findings of fact or conclusions of law were made by the court, but the learned trial judge at the close of the case made an orderly and succinct statement of the evidence and of the conclusions he drew therefrom, finding that no fraud had been practiced upon the plaintiff by the administrator, and that the property was in fact the community property of the deceased and her husband, and not the separate property of the deceased, entering a judgment accordingly. From the judgment entered this appeal is prosecuted.

The claim of fraud and deceit is based upon the conduct of the administrator had in connection with the probate proceedings. From the statement of the facts relating to the administration proceedings, it will be observed that the proceedings were apparently instituted originally on the theory that the property of the estate was the separate property of the decedent, in which case it would descend in equal shares to the respondent and appellant, and that the administrator subsequently adopted the theory that the property was community property, which would change the rule of descent; the respondent in that case being the sole heir thereof. In connection with this, the appellant testified (her testimony being taken by deposition) that, shortly after the institution of the probate proceedings, the respondent wrote a letter to a member of her family at Chicago, in which he stated the fact of his wife's death, the fact that she left an estate, that he had begun administration proceedings upon the estate and would attend to its due administration and that the appellant with himself were the heirs at law of the estate, and the persons to whom it would be finally distributed. She testified further that she relied upon these statements, believing that the respondent would carry into effect his promises, and had no knowledge or idea prior to the entering of the decree of distribution that the estate would not be so...