Palmer v. Palmer

• Decision Date: 13 April 1903
• Docket Number: 1462
• Citation: 72 P. 3,26 Utah 31
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: EUGENIA PALMER, EGBERT PALMER, FRED BARNES and J. W. HOUSTON, as Administrator of the Estate of W. D. PALMER, Deceased, Respondents, v. IDA M. PALMER, Appellant

72 P. 3

26 Utah 31

EUGENIA PALMER, EGBERT PALMER, FRED BARNES and J. W. HOUSTON, as Administrator of the Estate of W. D. PALMER, Deceased, Respondents, v. IDA M. PALMER, Appellant

No. 1462

Supreme Court of Utah

April 13, 1903

Appeal from the Third District Court, Salt Lake County.--Hon. W. C Hall, Judge.

Action in equity brought by the heirs and the administrator of the estate of W. D. Palmer, deceased, to quiet title to certain property owned by the deceased in his lifetime. From a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant appealed.

REVERSED.

Messrs Pierce, Critchlow & Barrette for appellant.

In other words, an agreement renouncing marital rights and obligations is void. Those rights and obligations cannot be renounced without the consent and sanction of the State or its courts; an agreement touching property rights, even though made between a husband and wife who are living separate, and in the light of that separation, may be valid an agreement wherein both the elements are mingled, each part and parcel of the other, and one a consideration for the other, is void. Foote v. Nickerson, 48 A. 1088 (N.H.); McKennan v. Phillips, 37 Am. Dec. 438; Simpson v. Simpson, 4 Dana 140 (Ky.); 15 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law (2 Ed.), p. 955; (Future Separation and cases); Baum v. Baum, 53 L.R.A. (Wis.) 652; Collins v. Collins, 93 Am. Dec. (N.C.) 606 (until changed by statute); Andrus v. Randon, 34 Texas 536; 1 Bishop, M. D. and S., 1260 et seq., 1312.

It is the first duty of every State to look to its own subjects. Comity does not require that an agreement shall be construed to accord with the laws of another State if, so construed, it would violate the public policy of this State. Welling v. Eastern Building & Loan Association, 34 S.E. (S. C.) 409; Pope v. Hanke, 155 Ill. 67, 40 N.E. 839; Keller v. Paine, 13 N.E. (N.Y.) 635; Hervey v. R. I. Locomotive Works, 93 U.S. 664; Seamans v. Temple Co., 28 L.R.A. (Mich.) 430; Rose v. Kimberly, 27 L.R.A. (Wis.) 556; Mumford v. Canty, 50 Ill. 370; Faulkner v. Hyman, 142 Mass. 53.

A contract between husband and wife, having for its object the procurement of a divorce, or facilitating that result, is collusive and void. Greenhood on Public Policy, 490-491; Beard v. Beard, 65 Cal. 354; Loveren v. Loveren, 106 Cal. 509; Sayles v. Sayles, 53 A. D. 208 and notes; 11 Bishop M. D. & S., secs. 249, 251, 252; 15 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), p. 956 (e), and cases; Adams v. Adams, 25 Minn. 72; Muckenberg v. Holler, 92 A. D. 345; 2 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), p. 127 (c), and cases; Phillips v. Thorpe, 10 Ore. 494; Stebbins v. Morris, 47 P. 642 (Mont.) ; Hamilton v. Hamilton, 89 Ill. 349; Seeley's Appeal, 14 A. 291 (Conn.) ; Belden v. Munger, 80 Am. Dec. (Minn.) 407; Stoutenberg v. Lybrand, 13 Ohio State 228; Hardy v. Smith, 136 Mass. 328; Blank v. Nohl, 19 S.W. 65 (Mo.) ; Blank v. Nohl, 20 S.W. 477 (Mo.) ; Wilde v. Wilde, 56 N.W. 742 (Neb.) ; Baum v. Baum, 52 L.R.A. (Wis.) 653; 1 Bishop 72, 73, 76.

Messrs. Stephens & Smith and W. B. Willingham, Esq., for respondents.

BARTCH, J., delivered the opinion of the court. BASKIN, C. J., and McCARTY, J., concur.

OPINION

BARTCH, J.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

This is an action in equity brought by heirs and the administrator of the estate of W. D. Palmer, deceased, against the defendant, to quiet title to certain property owned by deceased in his lifetime. Among other things, it is alleged in the complaint that said W. D. Palmer and the defendant on December 27, 1886, intermarried, and cohabited as husband and wife until about April 24, 1899, when irreconcilable differences arose between them; that about August 11, 1899, a contract of separation was made and entered into, and the property rights settled between the parties thereto; that, in accordance with this contract, the wife received real estate situate in the city of Atlanta, State of Georgia, of the value of $ 12,000, subject to an incumbrance of $ 5,000, and furniture in the house upon the real estate of the value of $ 3,000, and cash in the sum of $ 6,500; that at the time of the execution of the contract the husband was worth not to exceed $ 30,000; that the property in question herein is situate in the State of Utah where the husband resided from about the time of his permanent separation from his wife; that the defendant was a non-resident until his death; and that the husband carried out the terms of the agreement. The laws of the State of Georgia, under which the contract was claimed to have been made, were also pleaded. To the complaint the defendant filed a demurrer, which was overruled. Thereafter she filed an answer in which, inter alia, she admitted the marriage, the execution of the contract, the residence of her husband in Utah since then, and her non-residence. Affirmatively she then alleged that at the time of the death of the husband she became, and still is, the surviving wife and widow of the deceased; that, as such widow, the deceased having left no issue living, she is entitled, under the laws of Utah to $ 5,000 in value of his real and personal property, and to one-half of the excess over $ 5,000 in value thereof; that after their marriage, the husband treated her with kindness and consideration until he became addicted to the use of liquor in excess in "periodic sprees," when he was harsh, cruel and vindictive to her; that her remonstrances against the drinking habits caused him to be only more harsh and vindictive towards her, until about the latter part of April, 1899, she, at the suggestion of her husband, who furnished her with the funds therefor, made a visit to Indianapolis, in the hope that upon her return he would treat her with his former kindness and consideration; that while so absent he sold out his property in the State of Georgia, left the State with the proceeds, notified her that he would never return while she was in the State, and concealed his whereabouts from her; that, while she was endeavoring to locate her husband, H. L. Culberson, his cousin and attorney, and the pretended friend of the wife, offered to pay her $ 6,500, upon the express condition that she would agree to an absolute divorce, without alimony; that Culberson refused to disclose where her husband was, but informed her that he had left the State with all his property, and was beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of Georgia, and advised her, as her friend, to accept the offer of $ 6,500; that, not knowing the whereabouts of her husband, and relying upon the statements and protestations of friendship of Culberson, and being without means for her support, she agreed to accept the offer and execute the contract, which was signed and delivered under an express agreement, extorted from her, that she should proceed to procure a divorce from her husband; that on the next day after the execution of the contract a suit for divorce was filed in accordance with the dictations of the attorneys for her husband, which, upon trial, failed; that the contract was the result of fraud and improper influences exerted against her; that it was fraudulently obtained and is void; that the property mentioned in the complaint and in the contract as of the value of $ 12,000 was given to her by her husband in 1895, when his drinking habit had not yet estranged him from her, and at a time when her father had given him great assistance in his then financial embarrassment; that said property was of the value of about $ 9,500, subject to a mortgage of $ 5,000; and that at the time of the execution of the contract her husband was worth $ 50,000 in cash.

From the evidence it appears that on December 27, 1886, Mr. and Mrs. W. D. Palmer were married at Indianapolis, Ind., her maiden name being Ida Moody. Thereafter they lived at Macon and Atlanta, Ga., about thirteen years, and had one child born to them, who died in childhood. When they moved to Atlanta, in 1890, Palmer had, in all, about $ 6,000, which he invested in stock in a brick plant. Shortly afterwards the other stockholders were about to "freeze him out." Mr. L. D. Moody, Mrs. Palmer's father, learning of this came to her husband's rescue, advanced him money and credit, and saved him, it appears, from financial ruin. Up to August, 1898, the advancement of Moody to Palmer amounted to $ 17,333, and in February, 1899, Moody accepted in satisfaction for that amount the sum of $ 14,000. Palmer's business, it seems, was profitable, for in July, 1899, when he sold out, he cleared up about $ 42,000, of which about $ 30,000 was in cash, and $ 12,000 in a note of the purchaser; and this exclusive of the house given to his wife in 1895. In the course of time he developed drinking habits, which met with strong opposition from his wife, and resulted in disagreements between them. In the latter part of April, 1899, Mrs. Palmer made, with the sanction of her husband, who furnished her with the means with which to go, a visit to her parents, at Indianapolis. After she was gone they corresponded together as husband and wife, and she says that, while his drinking habits had become almost unendurable, yet she fully expected to return and live with him. While she was so on the visit, her husband sold out his property without her knowledge, and on July 12, 1899, wrote her what he had done, and that he intended to leave the State of Georgia, never to return so long as she was in it; that he had left her residence undisturbed just as she had left it; that all communications must cease forever; and that he had instructed his cousin H. L. Culberson to render her any assistance he could in securing a divorce, which he thought was the best thing to do, under the circumstances. After receiving this letter, she returned to Atlanta, called on Culberson, and found that her husband had in fact...