Keene v. Keene

• Decision Date: 15 May 1962
• Citation: 21 Cal.Rptr. 593,371 P.2d 329,57 Cal.2d 657
• Parties: , 371 P.2d 329 Ora Mae KEENE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Clarence W. KEENE, Defendant and Respondent. Sac. 7174.
• Court: California Supreme Court

Page 593

21 Cal.Rptr. 593

57 Cal.2d 657, 371 P.2d 329

Ora Mae KEENE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Clarence W. KEENE, Defendant and Respondent.

Sac. 7174.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

May 15, 1962.

Rehearing Denied June 13, 1962.

James G. Changaris, Yuba City, Thomas A. Wahl, Sacramento, and Francis T. Cornish, Berkeley, for plaintiff and appellant.

Pugh & Webster, Stanley Pugh and Donald B. Webster, Red Bluff, for defendant and respondent.

SCHAUER, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendant in an action for divorce and to impress a trust upon defendant's property with respect to the proceeds of an alleged joint venture or partnership between defendant and herself.

Plaintiff contends that under our decision in Vallera v. Vallera (1943) 21 Cal.2d 681, 134 P.2d 761, a woman who cohabits with a man knowing that they are not validly married is entitled to an interest in the property acquired in the latter's name during the period of unwedded cohabitation 'to the extent the woman renders services not included in the usual services of a housekeeper, cook and homemaker * * *.' We have concluded that the contention cannot be sustained and hence that the judgment should be affirmed.

The complaint is stated in two counts. In the first plaintiff alleges that the parties were married in 1939 in Sun Valley, Idaho, and separated in 1956 in California; that she and defendant had acquired certain community property; and that defendant had been guilty of cruelty towards her. She prays for a divorce and for a division of the alleged community property.

Responsive to this count the trial court found that plaintiff and defendant never entered into a marriage, either common law or statutory, and never acquired community property of any kind. The court further found that defendant had been married to one Nadine Keene until April 3, 1939; that 'between the year 1938 and the year 1956, plaintiff and defendant did at various times and places in the State (of) California and in other states cohabit together, but that said cohabitation ceased in the year 1956'; and that 'the cohabitation of the parties was at all times based solely upon a meretricious relationship existing between the parties.' Plaintiff does not challenge these findings, each of which is supported by substantial evidence.

In the second count of the complaint plaintiff alleges that during the period from 1938 to 1956 she and defendant owned and operated, as joint venturers or partners, certain ranch properties and other businesses; that she devoted her entire time and effort to the improvement and furtherance of such properties and businesses; and that because of a confidential relationship between the parties plaintiff relied on defendant's representations that he would share with her in all of the profits realized. Plaintiff prays that she be adjudged the owner of an undivided one-half interest in the designated property and that defendant be deemed to hold such interest in trust for her.

The evidence shows that defendant had owned the subject ranch property in Butte County for some 15 years before the inception of his relationship with plaintiff and that it was substantially improved and stocked with domestic animals. In 1946 defendant sold the ranch and its stock, and from then until 1956 (the year in which the parties separated) engaged in the real estate and furniture businesses or spent his time with plaintiff traveling about the country for pleasure.

The trial court found, and plaintiff does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding, that 'plaintiff and defendant did not at any time operate the ranches referred to in the complaint, or any other property, as joint venturers or partners.' In particular, the court found that 'plaintiff had no interest in said ranch (in Butte County) at the time of said sale (in 1946) and that the same was the sole and separate property of defendant * * * and that the proceeds of said sale belonged to said defendant alone'; and that defendant 'did use the proceeds of said sale to purchase certain other properties in the State of California, but that the same were not purchased by plaintiff and defendant as partners or joint venturers, * * * but the same were purchased by defendant as an individual dealing with his own separate property, * * *.'

Responsive to the allegations of reliance upon a confidential relationship, the court found that 'at no time during said period of cohabitation, * * * or at any time before or after said date, were there any confidential or business relations between plaintiff and defendant'; that 'It is not true that defendant at any time took title to any property with the intention or for the purpose of depriving plaintiff of any interest to which she was entitled therein'; and that 'defendant at no time made any representation, promise or agreement that he would operate any business whatever or own any property whatever as a partner or joint venturer with plaintiff; and further that plaintiff did not at any time rely upon any representation claimed to have been made by defendant with regard to plaintiff's having or acquiring any interest in property owned or acquired by defendant, nor did plaintiff rely upon any purported relationship of trust or confidence between plaintiff and defendant.' Each of these findings, supported by substantial evidence, is unchallenged by plaintiff.

Having concluded that all of the property standing in defendant's name at the time of trial was his sole and separate property and that plaintiff had established no interest therein, ¹ the court rendered judgment for defendant.

In Vallera v. Vallera (1943), supra, 21 Cal.2d 681, 684-685(3), 134 P.2d 761, we considered the question 'whether a woman living with a man as his wife but with no genuine belief that she is legally married to him acquires by reason of cohabitation alone the rights of a co-tenant in his earnings and accumulations during the period of their relationship.' We held that this question 'has already been answered in the negative. (Flanagan v. Capital Nat. Bank, 213 Cal. 664 (3 P.2d 307).) Equitable considerations arising from the reasonable expectation of the continuation of benefits attending the status of marriage entered into in good faith are not present in such a case.' While this court has not since had occasion to speak to the precise point, we adhere to the Vallera rule. ²

Seeking to avoid the effect to this rule, plaintiff quotes as applicable here our further statement in Vallera (p. 685(4) of 21 Cal.2d, p. 763 of 134 P.2d) that 'If a man and woman live together as husband and wife under an agreement to pool their earnings and share equally in their joint accumulations, equity will protect the interests of each in such property. (Citations.) Even in the absence of an express agreement to that effect, the woman would be entitled to share in the property jointly accumulated, in the proportion that her funds contributed toward its acquisition. (Citations.)' We do not depart from that proposition. But here the trial court found, as stated in its memorandum decision, 'no evidence of financial contributions by Plaintiff toward the property here concerned. Nor is there evidence sufficient to support any agreement upon which a joint enterprise or copartnership could be based.' In an effort to bring her case, nevertheless, within the purview of the just quoted language from Vallera, plaintiff stresses a finding of the trial court concerning the nature of her services during the period of cohabitation, ³ and on this basis contends that in Vallera 'When it used the word 'funds' the Court did not mean 'money' only. It referred to any contribution made by the woman, at least to any contribution other than her services as a housekeeper, cook and homemaker for which she may have been compensated either wholly or in part by support furnished.'

The contention is without merit. When a word is used which has a well established meaning in common parlance such as 'funds' the necessities of intelligible communication require that it be assumed that the user intended that common meaning. There is no mystery surrounding the word here questioned by plaintiff. The dictionary defines it as 'available pecuniary resources ordinarily including cash and negotiable paper' (Webster's New Internat. Dict. (3d ed. 1961), p. 921), and in a legal context the courts have also taken it to include property of value which may be converted into cash (see California G. & E. Corp. v. Union Trust Co. (1918) 178 Cal. 65, 71, 172 P. 146; State v. Finney (1935), 141 Kan. 12, 40 P.2d 411, 421(10)). A simple reading of both of the Vallera opinions demonstrates that the members of the court intended and understood the word 'funds' to be used in this common, everyday sense. Indeed, the dissenting opinion in Vallera expressly stated it to be 'the conclusion of the majority opinion that in order to sustain the judgment of the trial court there must be proof of a definite monetary contribution by the plaintiff in the form of separate property, or a contribution of her earnings as a waitress or from other employment outside the home.' (Italics added.) (Vallera v. Vallera (1943), supra, 21 Cal.2d 681, 686, 134 P.2d 761.) Plaintiff's reliance on subsequent decisions of this court and the District Court of Appeal which cite Vallera is misplaced, as none extends the word 'funds' beyond its intended, commonsense meaning.

It follows that Vallera is not authority for plaintiff's principal contention that a woman who cohabits with a man in a knowingly meretricious relationship is entitled to an interest in the property acquired in the latter's name during the period of such cohabitation 'to the extent the woman renders services not included in the usual services of a housekeeper, cook and homemaker * * *.' Nor, as will be shown, is there any sound basis in law or in equity upon which...