Mehelich v. Mehelich, 1014--I
| Decision Date | 11 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 1014--I,1014--I |
| Parties | Joseph D. MEHELICH, Respondent, v. Joseph P. MEHELICH and Helen L. Mehelich, his wife, Appellants. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Hennings, Maltman & Weber, John R. Weber, Seattle, for appellants.
Ostrander, Van Eaton & Thomas, Clinton F. Ferrell, Kirkland, for respondent.
Joseph P. Mehelich and wife Helen appeal from a judgment imposing a constructive trust in favor of appellant Joseph P. Mehelich's father, Joseph D. Mehelich, to the extent of the value of a life estate in the respondent father in certain realty. Findings of fact 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, to which no error is assigned, explain the transaction.
(3)
That in May, 1949, the defendants (Joseph P. and Helen L. Mehelich) located a house at 4019--124th (214th) Avenue S.W., Mountlake Terrace, Washington, approximately one half mile due west of his house, which was for sale for $4,400.00; that the terms of sale required cash to be paid down to a mortgage of approximately $1,100.00, (defendants' Exhibit #7); that on May 28, 1949, defendants signed the agreement to purchase the house through the Busy-Bee Realty, after plaintiff (Joseph D. Mehelich) and his wife looked at it and agreed to live there;
(4)
That the defendants contacted Mr. Z. L. Leslie, of Leslie Securities, Inc., to obtain financing, and attempted to borrow funds on a G.I. loan, which was denied because he would not be living in the house; thereafter Leslie Securities, Inc. loaned him $3,430.00 and took a mortgage from the defendants on the property purchased; that the said purchase was closed at Busy-Bee Realty on June 20, 1949, with the funds from Leslie Securities, Inc., by a deed to defendants, subject to a mortgage to Bothell State Bank of $1,117.52, with monthly payments of $35.00 (defendants' Exhibit $15);
(5)
That prior to the purchase of this property, plaintiff and his wife were paying rent of $35.00 per month at their apartment, and in June, 1949, they met at Leslie Securities, Inc. office with defendants and Mr. Leslie determined that plaintiff could convenitently pay $35.00 per month;
(6)
That subsequently Leslie Securities, Inc. bought the underlying mortgage from Bothell State Bank (defendants' Exhibit #14), which amount was repaid by the defendant son in a total amount of $1,624.47; that the said increase was accomplished on February 1, 1950, by an agreement increasing the contract balance on defendants' house in the amount of $1,624.47 and increasing his monthly payment to $35.00 per month (defendants' Exhibit #6); that from February 1, 1950, at a starting balance of $3,000.00, plaintiff paid off the defendants' mortgage at $35.00 per month until a final payment of approximately $600.00 was made in 1958 by a friend of the plaintiff, (defendants' Exhibit #13); that at that time the mortgage satisfaction was mailed to the defendants (defendants' Exhibit #19); that at no time did the plaintiff realize that the defendants had ever signed a mortgage on the house;
(7)
That until 1959 plaintiff paid the real estae taxes on the property; that at that time plaintiff lost his job and was financially unable to pay the taxes thereafter; that from that time on the defendants paid all of the real estate taxes; that the fire insurance was paid by plaintiff for some periods and by the defendants for other periods;
(8)
That during their occupancy of the premises, plaintiff and his wife redecorated the premises and spent substantial money and labor improving the premises generally; that both sons, Harold and Joe, spent considerable time and effort improving and working on the property along with plaintiff and neither son Harold nor Joe requested a receipt or payment from each other or from the plaintiff;
The trial court concluded upon these facts that a constructive trust ought to be impressed upon the proceeds of the sale of the real estate.
Appellants first assign error to finding 9 which states (9)
That neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have any degree of sophistication in real estate transactions;
The finding is based upon the trial court's interpretation of substantial evidence. Appellants' questioning of the use of the verb 'have' instead of the verb 'had' may have merit, but the meaning of the finding is clear and no prejudice is assigned to it.
Appellants also assign error to the italicized portion of finding of fact 10 which states:
(10)
That there has never been a formalized agreement between plaintiff and defendants regarding the ownership interests of the parties in said properties; that until the winter of 1969 defendants made no request and took no steps to remove plaintiff from the property in question; That, further, until the winter of 1969, defendants made no adverse claims against the plaintiff regarding interests in this property; that, in 1958, when the final payment was made on the property, plaintiff demanded delivery of the deed, which demand was refused by the defendants;
Substantial evidence supports this finding, even though it is not as clearly drawn as it might have been.
Appellants' third assignment of error is directed to finding of fact 12 which states:
(12)
That when plaintiff and his now deceased wife joined together with defendants, the purpose to be accomplished was the acquisition of a house for the elderly parents to reside in, and the parties were not concerned with title, and made no specific agreement regarding ownership; that plaintiff, his deceased wife, and defendants, together, acquired a piece of property, and in 1949 these parties were venturing into some kind of joint venture, the details of either parties' interest in which were never articulated; that the purpose of this acquisition was to provide the parents with a place to live the rest of their lives, after which the property would belong to defendant son, Joseph P. Mehelich, and his wife Appellants claim that the use of the term 'joint venture' in the absence of substantial evidence supporting a finding of the legal elements of a joint venture makes the entire finding erroneous. In making this argument, appellants overlook the context in which the words 'joint venture' were used. Clearly, when examined in the proper context, the words are not used as a term of art but are intended to be descriptive only. The finding is supported by substantial evidence.
Appellants' remaining assignments of error are directed to the trial court's conclusion that a constructive trust should be imposed to give the respondent an interest in the proceeds of the sale of the real estate to the extent of a life estate. The question this court must resolve is whether or not the findings of fact support this conclusion.
In resolving that question, we consider the following language in Seventh Elect Church in Israel v. First Seattle Dexter Horton Nat'l Bank, 162 Wash. 437, 440, 299 P. 359 (1931), which was quoted with approval in Scymanski v. Dufault, 80 Wash.2d 77, 491 P.2d 1050 (1971), to be significant:
Where for any reason the legal title to property is placed in one person under such circumstances as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hilton v. Mumaw
...§ 1053; Accord, Viewcrest Cooperative Ass'n v. Deer, supra, 70 Wash.2d at 293, 422 P.2d at 834-35; Mehelich v. Mehelich, 7 Wash.App. 545, 549, 500 P.2d 779, 781-82 (1st Div. 1972). Wrongdoing not amounting to common law fraud will permit imposition of a constructive trust. Viewcrest Coopera......
-
Baker v. Leonard
...the evidence established the decedent's intent that the legal title holder was not the intended beneficiary. See Mehelich v. Mehelich, 7 Wash.App. 545, 500 P.2d 779 (1972). Here, the question of intent is foreclosed by the Unless an equitable base is established by evidence of intent, there......
-
Ellis v. Mirghanbari (In re Pittman)
...It arises where the retention of the property would result in the unjust enrichment of the person retaining it.” Mehelich v. Mehelich,7 Wash.App. 545, 551, 500 P.2d 779 (1972). When there is no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing, a constructive trust may be imposed when “an equitable base is e......
-
OVERSEAS MANAGEMENT, LTD. v. Shtikel
...P.2d 1050. 29. Scymanski, 80 Wash.2d at 88-89, 491 P.2d 1050. 30. Baker, 120 Wash.2d at 547, 843 P.2d 1050. 31. Mehelich v. Mehelich, 7 Wash.App. 545, 551, 500 P.2d 779 (1972) (citation 32. Betchard-Clayton, 41 Wash.App. at 889, 707 P.2d 1361. 33. Betchard-Clayton, 41 Wash.App. at 893, 707 ......
-
Table of Cases
...Wn.2d 1011 (2001): 4.4(3)(f), 13.9(2)(g) Meeks, In re Estate of, 4 Wn.App. 2d 255, 421 P.3d 963 (2018): 13.4(12) Mehelich v. Mehelich, 7 Wn.App. 545, 500 P.2d 779 (1972): 4.3(1) Melter, In re Estate of, 167 Wn.App. 285, 273 P.3d 991 (2012): 3.3(5)(b), 13.3(1)(c), 13.3(2)(b), 13.3(2)(c) Meze......
-
§4.3 Rights and Claims Available to All Beneficiaries
...of the intention of the parties and "may arise even though acquisition of the property [is] not wrongful." Mehelich v. Mehelich, 7 Wn.App. 545, 551, 500 P.2d 779 (1972) (quoting Scymanski v. Dufault, 80 Wn.2d 77, 89, 491 P.2d 1050 (1971)). Such trusts arise "where the retention of the prope......