Hines v. Baker, 12384.

• Citation: 89 Colo. 1,299 P. 5
• Decision Date: 11 May 1931
• Docket Number: 12384.
• Parties: HINES v. BAKER et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

299 P. 5

89 Colo. 1

HINES v. BAKER et al.

No. 12384.

Supreme Court of Colorado

May 11, 1931

In Department.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Henry Bray Judge.

Suit by L. M. Hines against Isabelle Baker and others, including C H. Baker, in which C. H. Baker filed a counterclaim. To review the judgment, plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Rees D. Rees and C. E. Wampler, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Harold G. King, of Denver, for defendants in error.

BUTLER J.

L. M Hines received a sheriff's deed to real property in Denver. He thereupon sued Isabelle Baker, C. H. Baker, and Frances Bacon to procure the cancellation, as fraudulent, of certain deeds to the property; namely, a deed from Isabelle Baker to C. H. Baker and a deed from C. H. Baker to Frances Bacon. C. H. Baker filed a counterclaim to quiet title in himself. The court rendered judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint and quieting title in C. H. Baker.

The property described in the several deeds consists of a house and two lots, the residence of the two Bakers, who are husband and wife. Frances Bacon was the name of Isabelle Baker before her marriage to Baker.

On July 9, 1924, Mrs. Baker gave to Hines and Regnier her promissory note for $192. On July 25 one Salzer deeded the property to her. On May 14, 1925, she deeded the property to her husband, C. H. Baker. On December 15, Hines and Regnier sued on the promissory note, and on February 19, 1926, obtained judgment for $115 and costs. On February 9, 1927, the sheriff levied execution on the property as the property of Mrs. Baker, and on May 2 sold it to Hines and Regnier for the amount of their judgment and costs and expenses. On May 19, Regnier assigned his interest in the certificate of purchase to Hines. On December 1, Baker deeded the property to his wife under her former name, Frances Bacon, and, on December 21, Frances Bacon redeeded it to Baker. On March 8, 1928, Hines received the sheriff's deed to the property, and on the same day he commenced this suit.

1. The transaction whereby the property purchased with the money of Baker was conveyed to his wife is presumed to have been a gift or an advancement. Cortez Land & S. Co. v. Stabler, 84 Colo. 64, 268 P. 526; Foster v. Berrier, 39 Colo. 398, 89 P. 787; Rowe v. Johnson, 33 Colo. 469, 81 P. 268; Doll v. Gifford, 13 Colo.App. 67, 56 P. 676. Such presumption may be rebutted by competent evidence.

2. Baker claims that no gift or advancement was intended, and that, as the property was purchased with his money, a resulting trust arose in his favor. If that claim is supported by the evidence, the judgment should be affirmed.

3. The claim that there was a resulting trust, to prevail, must be established by evidence that is strong and convincing. See cases cited supra.

4. The trial court is the judge, not only of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight of the evidence, but also the inferences properly deducible from the facts and circumstances proven at the trial. On review, the record is viewed in the light most favorable to the party successful in the trial court, and every inference fairly deducible from the evidence is drawn in favor of the judgment. Roberts v. Dietz (Colo.) 298 P. 1062 just decided; Gwynn v. Butler, 17 Colo. 114, 28 P .466; Reahard v. Miller, 66 Colo. 80, 179 P. 157; McDermott v. Lingquist, 66 Colo. 88, 89, 179 P. 147; Carper v. Frost Oil Co., 72 Colo. 345, 211 P. 370.

The purchase price for the lots was paid by Baker with money that he had earned in the practice of chiropractic. After purchasing the lots, he built a house upon them, paying therefor with his own money. The property cost him approximately $6,000. There was a mortgage for $3,000 upon the property. Mrs. Baker had no money. She deeded the property to her husband without any consideration. It does not appear that she owed any one at the time, except Hines and Regnier, who held her note.

The note was given as part purchase price of an oil and gas prospecting permit purchased by Mrs. Baker from Hines and Regnier. Hines testified that at the time of the purchase Baker told him that Mrs. Baker owned the property--that it was in his wife's name. Baker denied that there was any such conversation, and the undisputed evidence is that the deed from Salzer to Mrs. Baker was not given until after she had incurred the indebtedness to Hines and Regnier.

Baker testified that he and his wife, who helped him in his office, wanted a home; that they looked at lots; that she was 'apparently doing the most of it'; that the lots were purchased by him; that a contractor got his wife interested in building a house; that Baker built the house because his wife wanted a home; that 'she was really the interested party; I was the fellow that agreed to it'; that he agreed to it 'to satisfy a woman's desire'; that 'it seems to be almost every woman's desire to own a home'; that he had not given any instructions as to who should be named as grantee in the deed from Salzer; that he 'never thought of it; this never came up'; that he was busy; that eventually it was discovered that the deed was to his wife instead of to himself; that, while he had no doubt of his wife, 'as a matter of family affairs' he wanted the property in his own name; and that she deeded the property to him.

Mrs Baker testified as follows: 'I had always wanted a home, and there was a contractor came into the office with plans and specifications, and doctor was busy, and he talked to me about it, and after he went out...