Mattinson v. Mattinson

• Citation: 128 Wash. 328,222 P. 620
• Decision Date: 30 January 1924
• Docket Number: 17954.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Parties: MATTINSON v. MATTINSON.

222 P. 620

128 Wash. 328

MATTINSON v. MATTINSON.

No. 17954.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 30, 1924

Appeal from Superior Court, Walla Walla County; Mills, Judge.

Action by Anna P. Mattinson against E. D. Mattinson. Judgment for plaintiff for part relief only and she appeals. Modified and remanded.

Holcomb Mitchell, and Mackintosh, JJ., dissenting.

Elisha A. Baker, of Portland, Or., and John C. Hurspool, of Walla Walla, for appellant.

J. G Thomas and W. A. Toner, both of Walla Walla, for respondent.

PEMBERTON J.

Appellant instituted this action against E. D. Mattinson, her husband to have certain real estate adjudged to be her separate property clear of any claim of the community consisting of herself and respondent and for judgment for moneys loaned to respondent. Judgment was entered as prayed for as to the real estate and denied for the money loaned from which judgment this appeal is taken.

The court held that appellant could not recover judgment against respondent or the community for moneys loaned respondent during the existence of the marital relation. The cross-appeal taken by respondent appears to have been abandoned and upon motion of appellant it is hereby dismissed.

The trial court found the facts as follows:

'(8) That commencing with the year 1916, and prior to the commencement of this action, plaintiff loaned to the defendant certain sums of money out of the rents, issues, and profits of her separate property by check drawn by her on her account at the Baker-Boyer National Bank of Walla Walla, Wash., and in cash, but it did not appear from the evidence whether such sums were loaned to the community consisting of plaintiff and defendant or to the defendant for his separate benefit.

'(9) That commencing with the year 1916, and up to the time of the commencement of this action, plaintiff paid out of her separate funds to the Baker-Boyer National Bank of Walla Walla, Wash., upon notes executed by plaintiff and defendant to such bank for moneys borrowed by defendant from such bank certain sums of money, but it does not appear whether the money so borrowed by defendant was borrowed for the benefit of the community consisting of plaintiff and defendant or by defendant for his separate benefit.'

There were other findings as to other indebtednesses represented by notes signed by both appellant and respondent for which the court would not permit recovery but without prejudice to the right of appellant to maintain an action therefor in the event she pays the same out of her separate property.

Appellant insists that she is entitled to judgment against respondent and the marriage community of appellant and respondent. The testimony shows that the money in question was loaned to respondent for his own behalf or for the benefit of the community. In the failure to show to the contrary the obligation is presumed to be a community obligation. Rea v. Eslick, 87 Wash. 125, 151 P. 256; McDonough v. Craig, 10 Wash. 239, 39 P. 1034; Calhoun v. Leary, 6 Wash. 17, 32 P. 1070; Bryant v. Stetson & Post Mill Co., 13 Wash. 692, 43 P. 931. Respondent, being the manager of the community estate, is personally liable as well as the community. First National Bank v. Cunningham, 72 Wash. 532, 130 P. 1148; Curry v. Catlin, 9 Wash. 495, 37 P. 678, 39 P. 101; Erfurth v. Erfurth, 90 Wash. 521, 156 P. 523; Parke v. Case, 113 Wash. 263, 193 P. 688.

The law of this state permits both the husband and wife to each hold property separate and apart from the other and recognizes that the marriage community is a separate entity distinct from the separate estates of each. Sections 6890, 6891, 6892, Rem. Comp. Stat.

'In fixity of constitution, a community resembles a corporation. It is similar to a corporation in this, also, that the state originates it, and that its powers and liabilities are ordained by statute. In it, the proprietary interests of husband and wife and equal, and those interests do not seem to be united merely, but unified; not mixed or blent, but identified. It is sui generis--a creature of the statute.' Holyoke v. Jackson, 3 Wash. T. 235, 3 P. 841; Ryan v. Fergusson, 3 Wash. 356, 28 P. 910.

Under the law the husband has the management and control of the community property. Sections 6892, 6893, Rem. Comp. Stat. If in his management he borrows money from his wife belonging to her separate property, he and the community and liable upon this obligation to the same extent as if borrowed from a third party, and there is no reason pointed out why the wife should not be permitted to bring an action to recover the amount loaned from her separate funds and secure judgment against her husband personally and the marriage community. She may sue and be sued as if unmarried.

Sections 6900, 6902, Rem. Comp. Stat. The statute expressly authorizes this action.

'Should either husband or wife obtain possession or control of property belonging to the other, either before or after marriage, the owner of the property may maintain

...