Indra v. Wiggins
| Decision Date | 29 July 1947 |
| Docket Number | 47001. |
| Citation | 28 N.W.2d 485,238 Iowa 728 |
| Parties | INDRA v. WIGGINS et ux. WIGGINS v. WIGGINS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Geo. C. Claassen, of Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Jordan & Jordan, of Cedar Rapids, for appellees and cross-appellant.
As the appeal is presented, the chief complaint of the plaintiff against the decree of the court is that it charges her share in the joint property with one-half of the enhanced value thereof, which increase in value was found by the court to have resulted from improvements placed on the ground, and paid for by the defendant, J. H. Wiggins. Her contention is that although she contributed nothing to any improvement placed on the bare acre of ground, the value of which at all times pertinent was but $150, she is nevertheless, entitled to one-half of the value in excess thereof, all of which resulted from defendants' improvements. On March 5, 1946, Mr. and Mrs. J. H. Wiggins sold this property by written contract for $8,250. By agreement of the parties the purchasers are to pay the purchase price to a referee appointed by the court, as soon as an abstract showing good title and the referee's deed are furnished. Plaintiff does not question that the enhanced value, as evidenced by the sale price, was due to the improvements. The able trial court found that the claim, so vigorously pressed by the plaintiff, 'as a matter of equity and fairness entirely lacks foundation.' We agree fully in this finding and conclusion.
Louise M Indra, a maiden of 28 years, and James H. Wiggins, a boy of about 20, were married in 1938. She had been working in Cedar Rapids, and he was living with his parents on a farm about two miles north of Marion in Linn County. For two or more years they lived in an apartment in Marion. No issue was born to them, and they adopted a little boy. They desired a home of their own. Louise had saved about $1,000 from her premarriage earnings, and some time after the marriage her father, John F. Indra, gave her $1,000. The father of James owned a 40-acre timber pasture just across the road from his parental home. On June 17, 1941, the parents of James went to a lawyer in Cedar Rapids, and executed a warranty deed, there prepared, conveying to J. H. Wiggins and Louise M. Wiggins husband and wife, as joint tenants and not as tenants in common, with right of survivorship, an acre of ground out of said 40-acre tract. The recited consideration was $1 and other valuable consideration. The lawyer had the deed recorded and then placed it in an envelope and mailed it or handed it to James. He paid little attention to the deed and thought it conveyed title to himself only. He took it directly to the Building and Loan Association without knowing or understanding that the deed was to him and his wife as joint tenants. He never knew this until he was so informed by a letter he received from plaintiff's attorney herein, on September 22, 1944. Louise never had seen the deed.
Some time after receiving the deed from the scrivener, James negotiated a loan of $2,000 with the Linn County Building and Loan Association of Marion, and he and Louise executed their note therefor, and secured its payment by their mortgage on the acre of ground. The date of this does not appear. He entered into a contract with a builder for the construction of the house. From her savings before marriage she contributed toward the building $1,900. The contract price was $4,075, but, as usually happens, there were extras and the cost overran the contract price. The contractor had not allowed for a stairway to the second story, and the extra cost therefor was between three and four hundred dollars. James dug the basement and a trench for about 300 feet for piping water. He also dug a sewer ditch from the house to the toilet, a distance of about 150 feet. He painted the house outside and inside and finished the floors. The house was built of the best material and modern in every way. There was a full basement and two floors above. The house was heated with a furnace and lighted with electricity. Some of the rooms in the second story were not fully finished. This was also true of the basement. The improvements at that time fairly represented an outlay in money and his labor approximating $5,000. The home was comfortably furnished. From his earnings he had reduced the mortgage to about $1,400. What his work was does not appear, except his name on a letterhead indicates his association with another in the dairy business.
But marital discord entered the home. What its cause was and when it arose is not disclosed in the record. They talked together about divorce. He consulted Charles J. Haas, a lawyer of Marion, formerly on the bench of the Eighteenth Judicial District of Iowa, whom the trial court spoke of as 'a highly skilled and meticulous lawyer.' She talked with a friend, but whether he was a lawyer does not appear. She employed no lawyer but consulted four or five times with Judge Haas. Usually one or both of her married sisters or her father were present at these conferences, and once or twice her husband was present. She brought to Judge Haas a written itemized statement showing the furniture and household furnishings which she wished. Apparently she received a fair share thereof. In this statement were the items: 'Louise's cash investment in house', and '$500 cash settlement.' The matter of the house and lot was never discussed at these conferences, because Judge Haas had asked James about the title and he had told him the deed was to him. Louise never told the Judge anything different, and when he prepared the property settlement stipulation, and the divorce decree no mention was made of the real estate. James H. Wiggins was the plaintiff in the suit. Louise signed a written appearance and waiver of notice and time of hearing. The stipulation, signed by both parties on February 21, 1944, stated: 'the property rights of the parties and the custody of the adopted child * * * are hereby settled and agreed upon as follows: * * *.' It provided that within 10 days after decree, James was to pay $2,403, 'in full of all claims for alimony, money advanced, and for any and all claims of whatsoever kind and character that the said Louise has or claims to have against the said James.' The personal property was listed. The custody of the adopted boy was given to James. Judge Haas testified that the $2,403 was made up of the $500 cash alimony item and $1,903 was to reimburse Louise for the money she had furnished toward the house-building expense. The Judge also testified that before drawing the stipulation he asked Louise if it was to settle everything and all matters that were between them, and she replied that it did. He told her that James had no ready money, and could raise the $2,403 to pay her only by placing a mortgage on the residence, and that it would be better if the decree of divorce was first procured and then she would not have to sign the mortgage papers, and James could execute the mortgage on the house and lot, which would require about 10 days. Louise agreed to this, and never mentioned anything about her having an interest in the home. She testified that she never knew that her name was in the deed or that she had any interest in the property. The decree of divorce was rendered on March 17, 1944. It decreed that James H. Wiggins had established the allegations of his petition and was entitled to the divorce. The stipulation was made a part of the decree by reference. The decree recited that: 'Except as provided in this decree, neither of the parties shall hereafter have any interest in the property of the other.' On the day the decree was granted Judge Haas sent Louise a certified copy of it and told her that James would have to execute a mortgage and have the abstract of title extended to show the decree, and that he would notify her when she could get her money at the clerk's office. To procure the money, James, on March 28, 1944, executed to the Linn County Building and Loan Ass'n his note for $3,000 secured by his mortgage on this residence property. This satisfied the $1,400 owing on the old mortgage, and left him $1,600 to apply on the $2,403 owing Louise. He borrowed enough of his father to settle in full with her.
Louise moved out of his home and took with her all of her possessions therein, as soon as the decree was granted. He remained in the home, and, on August 7, 1944, he married the second Mrs. Wiggins. She had money of her own which she placed in a joint account with him. Out of this fund, on September 2, 1944, he paid $2,906.32 to satisfy the balance owing on the mortgage of $3,000. After the second marriage the house was completed by finishing the upstairs and basement, and putting a recreation room in the latter. The grounds were landscaped and fenced, and a chicken house was built. The house was carpeted downstairs at an expense of $398.13. Awnings were put on the house. These carpets and awnings went with the property when it was sold. These improvements were paid by checks on the joint account amounting to approximately $1,500.
The original outlay for the house and the later additions made the total cost of the improvements on the ground approximately $6,500. Louise paid no part of this. What she had paid on the original contract price had been returned to her. The entire cost of the improvements had been paid for by James. Plaintiff in argument seeks to make something of the fact that James procured some of the money from the second Mrs. Wiggins. That fact does not aid the plaintiff. James procured the money to make the improvements, and the source thereof is immaterial. Plaintiff has no more right to unjustly enrich herself from the property of Mrs. Wiggins than she has to...
To continue reading
Request your trial