Granquist v. McKean

• Decision Date: 18 December 1947
• Docket Number: 30179.
• Citation: 187 P.2d 623,29 Wn.2d 440
• Parties: GRANQUIST et ux v. McKEAN.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

187 P.2d 623

29 Wn.2d 440

GRANQUIST et ux v. McKEAN.

No. 30179.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 18, 1947

Department 2

Action by J. L. Granquist and Emma O. Granquist, his wife, against Kate McKean to recover possession of real property and to obtain judgment for rent allegedly due thereon. Judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Charles R. Denney judge.

C. W Jordan and Wm. A. Johnson, both of Everett, for appellant.

O. D Anderson, of Everett, for respondents.

ROBINSON Justice.

This action was commenced for the purpose of recovering possession of real property and for a judgment for rent due thereon.

The complaint stated that the defendant was in possession as a tenant, had failed to pay rent for a period of twenty-nine months, and had refused to either pay the rent or surrender possession of the property.

In her answer, defendant admitted possession of the premises, denied that she was a tenant of plaintiffs, and then alleged in a 'counterclaim and affirmative defense,' in substance, that, in 1937, she and plaintiffs had entered into an oral agreement by the terms of which Joseph Granquist would build a house upon certain premises owned by plaintiffs and would thereafter enter into an agreement to sell the property to her for $1500, payable $300 down, and the balance, together with interest at the rate of five per cent per annum, to be paid in monthly installments of $15 per month. She further alleged that she paid the $300 in accordance with the contract, entered into possession of the premises under that agreement, and thereafter paid the monthly installments of $15 until sometime in 1943, at which time, in compliance with advice given to her by her attorney to make no further payments until plaintiffs should execute a written agreement of sale in accordance with the oral agreement, she discontinued payments. In their reply, plaintiffs put in issue the allegations contained in the counterclaim.

The case was tried to the court sitting without a jury, and at the conclusion of the trial the court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law to the effect that the evidence failed to establish the agreement claimed by defendant. Thereafter a judgment was entered restoring possession of the property to plaintiffs and also giving them a judgment for the unpaid rent, less $300 which plaintiffs admitted having received from defendant. Defendant has appealed.

No good purpose would be served by setting out the assignments of error, fifteen in number. It is sufficient to say that they properly challenged the findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment entered by the trial court.

The evidence produced at the trial relating to the contract is very much in dispute. It discloses that, in 1937, appellant and respondents were next door neighbors. It shows that Granquist was a builder by occupation. Appellant was a widow with two small children, and was receiving & pension of $20 per month from the state of Washington. She resided in a small house which she rented from a man by the name of Moore. Mr. Moore sold the property, and appellant was required to move. Thereafter some discussion took place between the parties regarding the building by respondents, upon property owned by them, of a small house which they would sell to appellant. Appellant testified that the price was to be fifteen or sixteen hundred dollars, to be paid in monthly installments. Respondents erected on the property a one-story house. Appellant paid Mr. Granquist $300 and received a receipt, dated October 21, 1937, which recited: 'Payment on house.'

Prior to the commencement of the construction of the house, appellant informed the respondents that she was not a citizen and could not own real property. Her testimony relative to the contract was as follows:

'A. Well, I had to move. The property had been sold, so I was looking for a place at Edmonds, and I was talking to Mrs. Granquist about it, and she says, Well, why don't you interest Mr. Granquist in building a little house for you?' and I said, 'Do you think he would do that for me?' She says, 'Why, I'm sure.' So then I got into a conversation with Mr. Granquist and he said he could build me a house, and I asked him how much he would charge me for a little house. I said I couldn't pay very much, so he said he would draw up a plan. So I saw the plan, and Mrs. Granquist said to me, 'That's too small. Don't you have it.' So I said--I asked Mr. Granquist if he would build me 21 by 28 and if he could build that and let me have a little land; I wouldn't have to move all the time and I would pay him something down. So he looked at my plan. I drew it, and he said, 'Yes, I could build that for $1500.00,' and I said, 'How much land would you let me have?' 'Well,' he said, 'How much do you want?' I said, 'I only want a lot.' So he said, 'Would 60 frontage be all right and 160 down in the gully?' and I said, 'I don't want so much in the gully; I want more frontage,' and so he says, 'Well, how about 65 or 80?' and I said, 'Ninety would be better,' and I said, 'less in the back.' So he says, 'Well, I guess we can arrange that all right.' Then I told him that I wouldn't--after payment of the $300.00, I wouldn't ask him for a contract because I hadn't gotten my citizenship through. And I said, 'I want a contract as soon as that's straightened cut of I find out more about it.' He said that would be OK.'

And, further:

'A. Well, it took a period of nearly three years Before the place was finished as it is now.

'Q. There were a couple of upstairs rooms, were there? A. That was unfinished, and a temporary staircase.

'Q. Were they supposed to be finished by him? A. Yes.

'Q. In his price of $1500.00? A. That's what I understood.

'Q. And they were finished by him later on? A. Well, they are not completely finished yet.'

Appellant moved into the house sometime during the latter part of December, 1937, and thereafter paid the monthly rental of $15.00 until the end of 1942. All the receipts received by her for the monthly payments contained the recitals: 'For rent of house,' and a statement of the period covered by the rent payment.

Sometime prior to 1942, appellant became a citizen of the United States, and thereupon made a demand upon the respondents for the execution of a...