McGuire v. Hansen

• Decision Date: 12 July 1929
• Docket Number: 5307
• Citation: 48 Idaho 34,279 P. 413
• Parties: HATTIE MCGUIRE, Appellant, v. KATHERINE HANSEN and H. M. HANSEN, Her Husband, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

279 P. 413

48 Idaho 34

HATTIE MCGUIRE, Appellant, v. KATHERINE HANSEN and H. M. HANSEN, Her Husband, Respondents

No. 5307

Supreme Court of Idaho

July 12, 1929

TRUSTS-ESTABLISHMENT OF-EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY OF-BURDEN OF PROOF.

1. In suit to impress trust on land, contract under which claim of trust is made must be clear, just, definite and reasonable and must be proved by clear and satisfactory evidence.

2. In suit to impress trust on real property by virtue of contract of plaintiff's mother to cause distribution of property to be made to children at time of death of her husband plaintiff had burden to substantiate claim that property should be ordered redeeded by grantees of husband.

3. In suit by daughter against transferees of mother's husband to impress trust on real property, evidence held insufficient to establish contract of mother to distribute property equally among children.

4. In suit to establish trust in real property, court should not determine whether trust agreement extended to other property not transferred to defendant.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District for Kootenai County. Hon. Bert A. Reed, Judge.

Action to impress a trust on real property. Decree for defendants. Affirmed.

Decree sustained. Costs awarded to respondent.

Lynn W Culp, for Appellant, cites no authorities on points decided.

J. Ward Arney, for Respondents.

A plaintiff seeking to establish a trust in real property contrary to the express terms of a deed vesting title in another is required to make out his case clearly and satisfactorily beyond a reasonable doubt (excepting mining grub-stake agreements) even before a court of equity. (Morrow v. Matthew, 10 Idaho 423, 79 P. 197; Eidinger v. Mamlock, 138 Wash. 276, 244 P. 686; Mathews v. Tobias, 126 Ore. 358, 268 P. 988; Lambrecht v. Poudre Valley Bank, 83 Colo. 387, 265 P. 901; Brennen v. Derby, 124 Ore. 574, 265 P. 425; Bowen v. Galloway, 125 Kan. 568, 264 P. 1038.)

"The proof of the contract must be . . . . cogent, clear, and forcible (so) as to leave no reasonable doubt as to its terms and character . . . . the very conscience of the court must be touched by the facts of the particular case. . . ." (Pancoast v. Eldridge, 134 Okla. 247, 273 P. 255.)

GIVENS J. Budge, C. J., and T. Bailey Lee, Wm. E. Lee and Varian, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GIVENS, J.

This is a suit to impress a trust on real property by virtue of an alleged written contract to dispose of it according to such contract. Appellant alleged in substance that shortly prior to July, 1916, Alexander Bee and Anna Bee, husband and wife, made a written agreement whereby Anna Bee was to transfer all of her interest in their community property to Alexander Bee, to be used by him during his lifetime and to cause, at the time of his death, a distribution of the same in equal portions to their three children, issue of their marriage, and to appellant, daughter of Anna Bee by a former marriage. This written contract was later lost and was not available at the time of the trial.

Shortly after making whatever agreement was made Anna Bee died. Thereafter Alexander Bee deeded certain of his property to Katherine Hansen, the respondent, and certain other property to Mary Griffith, another daughter.

The present action was instituted by appellant asking for a retransfer of the property from Katherine Hansen.

The court found that the evidence of the agreement was too uncertain, indefinite and conflicting to justify a finding of any specific agreement.

The parties virtually agree that the rule in such cases is that the contract must be proven by clear and satisfactory evidence, and that the agreement must be clear, just definite and reasonable. (Bliss v. Bliss, 20 Idaho 467, 119 P. 451; Bedal v. Johnson, 37 Idaho 359, 218 P. 641; Eidinger v. Mamlock, 138 Wash. 276, 244 P. 684; Mathews v....