In re Hammer's Estate
| Decision Date | 14 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | 20661. |
| Citation | 260 P. 532,145 Wash. 322 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re HAMMER'S ESTATE. |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; Remann, Judge.
In the matter of the estate of Paul Scheldrup Hammer, deceased. On petition by Edna M. Hammer, administratrix, to have certain real property set over to her as exempt and in lieu of a homestead contested by Anna J. Hammer. Judgment for contestant, and the administratrix appeals. Affirmed.
J. H Gordon and A. D. Tollefson, both of Tacoma, for appellant.
Emil N Stenberg, of Tacoma, for respondent.
Upon the death of Paul S. Hammer, intestate, in Pierce county, his surviving wife, Edna M. Hammer, was appointed, and qualified as, administratrix of the estate. She filed an appraised inventory, including certain real property standing in his name. She then presented a petition to have certain of the real property set over to her as exempt and in lieu of a homestead, Anna J. Hammer, the mother of the decedent, appeared, contesting the petition, and alleging that she was the real owner of the real property and that it had been held in trust for her by her son Paul. Upon the trial findings and judgment were entered in favor of the mother, subject, however, to the right of the surviving wife Edna, in the sum of $800 paid by the decedent out of his own funds on the purchase price of the property. Edna M. Hammer has appealed.
The evidence in this case, using the language of the authorities, is clear, cogent, and convincing that, other than the $800 mentioned, the respondent furnished the consideration for the purchase of the real property. This created a resulting trust, he holding the legal title to the property, and she being the real owner to the extent that she had furnished the consideration. Farrell v. Mentzer, 102 Wash. 629, 174 P. 482; 26 R. C. L., Trusts, § 73, p. 1227; 3 Pomeroy, Eq. Juris. (4th Ed.) § 1037.
It is argued on behalf of the appellant, however, that to this rule of resulting trust there is an exception which is as well defined as the rule itself, viz. that, where property is purchased in the name of a child by a parent, the presumption of a gift arises and rebuts and overcomes the presumption of resulting trust. The case of Adley v. Pletcher, 55 Wash. 82, 104 P. 167, is relied on by counsel. But in that case the court found upon the evidence, much of which is set out in the opinion, that the parent who furnished the consideration intended as a matter of fact to make a gift of the property purchased. This presumption relied on by appellants is one of fact. One of the authorities furnished us by counsel for appellant upon the oral argument, namely, 1 Perry on Trusts (6th Ed.) § 145, says:
Or, as stated in section 143, 1 Perry on Trusts (6th Ed.) quoting another authority, 'Thus the question is resolved into one of intent.' Walston v. Smith, 70 Vt. 19, 39 A. 252.
In the present case there is no direct proof that the parent intended to make any advancement or gift to the son. On the contrary, it convincingly appears that the consideration for the property involved was inherited by the respondent from the estate of her bachelor son, Magne Hammer. When Magne died, the mother, rather old and feeble at the time requested her son Paul to come from his residence in another state and look after Magne's estate for her. He did so, and it was out of that estate, all of which belonged to the mother the respondent, that the consideration was derived for the purchase of the property in question. Paul was sickly while attending to the business for her, and, although she may have been careless, or at least lenient in not exacting accountings from him or supervising his management of her interests, there is no direct evidence that she meant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crellin v. Thomas
...in the proper office, such record was not discovered. See Drespel v. Drespel, 56 Nev. 368, 45 P.2d 792, 54 P.2d 226, and In re Hammer's Estate, 145 Wash. 322, 260 P. 532. The effort required of the defendant here to prepare and submit interrogatories to the plaintiff is certainly no greater......
-
Scott v. Currie
... ... Department ... Action ... by John Walter Scott, individually and as executor of the ... estate of Jean G. Chamberlin, deceased, against John D ... Currie and others involving the title to three parcels of ... real estate. From an ... ...
-
Spadoni's Estate, In re
...Creasman v. Boyle, 31 Wash.2d 345, 196 P.2d 835 (1948); Mouser v. O'Sullivan, 22 Wash.2d 543, 156 P.2d 655 (1945); In re Hammer's Estate, 145 Wash. 322, 260 P. 532 (1927); Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 440 Appellants contend a resulting trust may not be show by parol evidence. While such......
-
Walberg v. Mattson
...which is clear, cogent and convincing that no gift was intended. Denny v. Schwabacher, 54 Wash. 689, 104 P. 137; In re Hammer's Estate, 145 Wash. 322, 260 P. 532. See Adley v. Pletcher, supra; Dines v. Hyland, supra; and Scott v. Currie, The second exception applies in cases where the exist......
-
Table of Cases
...4.4(3)(e), 13.10(5) Hamlin, In re Guardianship of, 102 Wn.2d 810, 689 P.2d 1372 (1984): 5.3(7)(b), 6.3(1), 6.3(2) Hammer's Estate, In re, 145 Wash. 322, 260 P. 532 (1927): 4.3(2) Hampton v. Gilleland, 61 Wn.2d 537, 379 P.2d 194 (1963): 13.3(3)(a) Hanks v. Nelson, 34 Wn.App. 852, 664 P.2d 15......
-
§4.3 Rights and Claims Available to All Beneficiaries
...towards the real property that had been transferred out of his name to his mother and stepfather). [Page 4-17] In In re Hammer's Estate, 145 Wash. 322, 260 P. 532 (1927), the personal representative—decedent's widow—inventoried property that decedent's mother was able to establish belonged ......