Jones v. Davis

• Decision Date: 03 December 1942
• Docket Number: 28817.
• Citation: 15 Wn.2d 567,131 P.2d 433
• Parties: JONES v. DAVIS.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

131 P.2d 433

15 Wn.2d 567

JONES v. DAVIS.

No. 28817.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 3, 1942

Department 1.

Action by Lilly M. King, individually, and as executrix with will annexed of the estate of William B. King, deceased, against Blanche A. Shuman, to establish a community interest in realty, and impress a lien upon the property for such interest. Upon the death of Lilly M. King prior to trial Edna E. Jones, executrix of the estate of Lilly M. King deceased, was substituted as party plaintiff, and upon the death of Blanche A. Shuman subsequent to trial and prior to appeal, Frances M. Davis, executrix of the estate of Blanche A. Shuman, deceased, was substituted as party defendant. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Roger J. Meakim, judge.

Tyre H Hollander, of Seattle, for appellant.

Clay Nixon, of Seattle, for respondent.

BLAKE Justice.

Lilly M. King brought this action, in her individual capacity and as administratrix with will annexed of the estate of her late husband, William B. King, to establish a community interest in lot six, block twenty-five, of Lincoln Pontius' Supplemental Addition to the City of Seattle. The action was, in form, for partition, but the complaint was broad enough and the scope of the evidence sufficient to impress a lien upon the property for whatever community interest might be established. Mrs. King died prior to trial, and Edna E. Jones, her daughter by a former marriage, was substituted as party plaintiff. Subsequent to trial and prior to appeal, Mrs. Shuman died. Frances M. Davis, a daughter of Mr. and Mrs. King, has been substituted as party defendant.

William B. King and Blanche A. Shuman were brother and sister. In 1922, the property was conveyed to them as a gift by their mother. At that time, there were two small houses upon the lot. During his lifetime, King had complete management and control of the property, although, in 1937, he conveyed his interest to Mrs. Shuman by deed, which was filed for record in February, 1939. That this conveyance was intended as, and effected, a gift of his separate interest in the property to Mrs. Shuman, there is no doubt.

In 1928, King purchased and moved onto the property a two-story house, which he converted into two apartments. It is the contention of plaintiff that the funds with which this house was purchased and remodeled belonged to the community composed of William B. King and Lilly M. King. The trial court, however, found that the 'evidence was insufficient to establish any moneys due said community which would be a lien against the said real property.' Judgment dismissing the action was accordingly entered. Plaintiff appeals.

William B. King's interest in the real estate, having been acquired by gift, was his separate property. Its status as separate property was established as of the date of acquisition. Katterhagen v. Meister, 75 Wash. 112, 134 P. 673. And the presumption is that its status as such remained unchanged. In re Sanderson's Estate, 118 Wash. 250, 203 P. 75. If William B. King had separate property or income, it is also to be presumed that the improvements upon his separate property were made with separate funds. Guye v. Guye, 63 Wash. 340, 115 P. 731, 37 L.R.A.,N.S., 186; In re Finn's Estate, 106 Wash. 137, 179 P. 103; In re Woodburn's Estate, 190 Wash. 141, 66 P.2d 1138. But these presumptions may be overcome and a lien in favor of the community established by proof that community funds, in a substantial amount, have been used in the improvement of the property. Worthington v. Crapser, 63 Wash. 380, 115 P. 849; Jacobs v. Hoitt, 119 Wash. 283, 205 P. 414. The burden of establishing a community interest in separate property is upon the person asserting it. Guye v. Guye, supra.

The question for determination, therefore, is whether appellant has sustained the burden of proving that community funds were used in purchasing and improving the house that was moved onto the lot. The evidence tending to establishment of the fact is entirely documentary--though, in some degree, circumstantial.

To begin with, an itemized statement in King's handwriting is in evidence, showing the purchase price of the house, the cost of moving it onto the lot, and the amounts expended for material and labor in repairing and transforming it into apartments. The total amount of such expenditures was $2,299.62. The items of expenditure, in this statement, are fortified by cancelled checks drawn by King on the only checking account maintained by him. This account was in the Brotherhood Bank and Trust Company of Seattle. It was carried in his individual name, but his checks bore the following caption:

'W. B. King Company

'505 Pacific Block, Elliott, 5640

'Used Printing Machinery and Equipment

'Merchandise Broker'

King was a man who, at various times, engaged in diverse enterprises, all of which were dependent upon his personal supervision and energy. It is a fair inference that most of his earnings, if not all, found their way into his account in the Brotherhood bank. We think, too, that the inference is irresistible that these earnings were the...