Perez v. Tomberlin

• Decision Date: 17 June 1959
• Docket Number: No. 6727,6727
• Citation: 86 Ariz. 66,340 P.2d 982
• Parties: Petra PEREZ, Appellant, v. O. R. TOMBERLIN, Lura B. Tomberlin, Francis Sanner, Lillian Sanner, C. V. Smith et ux., Robert A. Shirley et ux., Appellees.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 982

340 P.2d 982

86 Ariz. 66

Petra PEREZ, Appellant, v.O. R. TOMBERLIN, Lura B. Tomberlin, Francis Sanner, Lillian Sanner, C. V. Smith et ux., Robert A. Shirley et ux., Appellees.

No. 6727.

Supreme Court of Arizona.

June 17, 1959.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1959.

Thomas E. Goodale III, Tucson, for appellant.

John G. Pidgeon, Bisbee, for appellees.

UDALL, Justice.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis of the record before it, i. e., was there a genuine issue of material fact for determination?

Petra Perez as plaintiff brought this action against defendantsO. R. Tomberlin et al.In count one she sought to quiet her title to the NE 1/4 of Section 1, T. 22 S., Range 20 East in Cochise County; and in count two, damages were asked for wrongfully ejecting her from said property.The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment on both counts, in favor of all defendants.This appeal followed.We shall refer to the parties by their designation below, i. e., plaintiff and defendants.

We have repeatedly laid down the basic rules to be observed in determining motions for summary judgment.See, Northen v. Elledge, 72 Ariz. 166, 232 P.2d 111;Stevens v. Anderson, 75 Ariz. 331, 256 P.2d 712;Whitfield Transportation v. Tucson Warehse & Transfer Co., 78 Ariz. 136, 276 P.2d 954.Inter alia we stated in these decisions that the court under such a motion does not try issues of fact but only determines whether the same are genuine and in good faith disputed.Furthermore we held the mere general statement in a pleading, when attacked by such motion supported by proof of specific facts in the form of affidavits, etc., places on the author of the statement the obligation to present something which all show that when the date of trial arrives, he will have some proof to support the allegations in the pleading.

We must first determine on this record what documents the court could properly consider in ruling upon said motion.Repeated reference is made in the briefs to a deposition.It appears that prior to trial the defendants, using an interpreter, took the deposition of plaintiff before L. B. Neff, a notary public, who is also court reporter of Cochise County.Deponent is a widow, seventy-three years of age, and does not speak English.When the deposition was written up she objected thereto upon the grounds she had misunderstood so many of the questions that the answers purportedly given 'did not reveal her true state of mind at all' and this was attributed to the fact that the interpreter 'did not speak her kind of Spanish.'Her counsel in effect asked that the deposition be set aside unless her eight-page corrections thereto were allowed.(In substance the proposed corrections tell a story directly opposite to that shown by the original answers.)The court denied the petition to set aside the deposition and such ruling is not assigned as error.16 A.R.S. Rule 30(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a deposition be submitted to deponent for examination and signature unless the parties have stipulated that such requirements are waived.In the instant case there was no such waiver and the deposition is not signed.Therefore, neither the statements appearing in the deposition nor the proposed corrections could be considered in determining the motion for summary judgment.We must assume the learned trial court was aware of this and did not consider either of them.Certainly there is nothing in the record--except the bald assertion of plaintiff's counsel--that such documents were taken into consideration.This left to be taken into account only the pleadings, affidavits and interrogatories hereinafter referred to.

Plaintiff's complaint appears to state a good claim for relief under A.R.S. § 12-1102, governing quiet title actions.The premises are described and the nature and extent of her estate is set forth, it being alleged that she had been in adverse possession for more than thirty years; that during this period she had claimed to own the same against the whole world and had paid the taxes levied thereon.However, the attempted verification of the complaint--which is specifically required by statute to be under oath--is hopelessly defective.The answer, in addition to certain general denials, asserts defendants are the owners of said property and have been continuously in possession thereof; as to count two it is alleged plaintiff voluntarily left the premises after the Sheriff had served her with a 'notice to quit'.

In support of their motion the defendants submitted five affidavits plus some reference to defendants' sworn answers to certain interrogatories propounded by plaintiff.From these it appears defendant Tomberlin homesteaded the land in question, receiving a patent therefor dated September 22, 1916; since that time he has paid all taxes levied upon said property.Tomberlin stated that when plaintiff and her husband (since deceased) first moved onto the premises they did so by the oral authorization of his lessee Mr. Fry and they stayed thereafter for a time with his permission; that when he visited the property in the year 1934the plaintiff was not living on said premises; on a later visit, in 1941 or 1942, she was living there but admitted to him she did not own the property and, when she learned he was the owner, begged for permission to remain thereon, which was granted upon her express promise that she would move at any time requested; at a later visit, in 1952, she again acknowledged his ownership and proffered to move when asked to do so; that prior to the commencement of this suit he had conveyed parcels of said land to the other defendants; that plaintiff voluntarily left the premises when she was served with a notice to quit.

Affiant Erwin Fry stated that in the early 1930's he and his father had an oral lease on the premises and were running their cattle thereon; that they gave plaintiff and her husband oral permission to use an old adobe house located thereon; at no time...