Raborn v. Hayton

• Decision Date: 08 July 1949
• Docket Number: 30866.
• Citation: 208 P.2d 133,34 Wn.2d 105
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: RABORN v. HAYTON.

208 P.2d 133

34 Wn.2d 105

RABORN v. HAYTON.

No. 30866.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 8, 1949

Department 1

Action by Edna B. Raborn, administratrix of the estate of Ellen B Hayton, deceased, against Roscoe L. Hayton, to set aside a deed and to quiet title to certain realty. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald, Judge.

E. P Donnelly and Rummens & Griffin, Seattle, for appellant.

Wettrick Flood & O'Brien, Seattle, for respondent.

MALLERY Justice.

This is an action by respondent to set aside a deed and to quiet title to certain realty.

Ellen Coyle, a widow, acquired this property February 7, 1945 and owned it as separate property. She married Roscoe Hayton in March, 1946. In November, 1947 marital differences arose and they discussed a property settlement in contemplation of divorce whereby Hayton would give his wife twenty thousand dollars for all her interest in their various community and separate properties, she to retain only an automobile and household furniture. At this time Hayton told Mrs. Hayton's sister, Mrs. Rayborn, that he was getting the money from his brother-in-law in Milton, Oregon.

January 2, 1948, Mrs. Hayton executed in her attorney's office a quitclaim deed to the property in question, naming Hayton as grantee, the deed reciting: '* * * for and in consideration of consummation of settlement agreement.' The attorney testified over objection that when she executed the deed in question Mrs. Hayton expressed her intention to consummate the property settlement in his office and that she would deliver the deed only upon receipt of the money.

About this time Mrs. Hayton rented separate quarters for herself and her minor, adopted son and moved some personal effects thereto. January 7, 1948, Mrs. Raborn saw some deeds in Mrs. Hayton's handbag but could not identify the deed in question.

January 8, Hayton murdered his wife. The next day Mrs. Raborn phoned him inquiring as to Mrs. Hayton's whereabouts. He replied he had last seen her in a downtown lunchroom where he had given her twenty thousand dollars in cash in exchange for the deeds. The same day, when Mr. Raborn also inquired, Hayton again disclaimed knowledge of Mrs. Hayton's whereabouts, described their lunchroom meeting and said, 'Here are the deeds. I made a deal. I got everything, lock, stock and barrel, and furniture and all.'

January 10, Hayton phoned Mrs. Raborn, stating that an unidentified man had phoned, instructing him to pack Mrs. Hayton's personal effects at her separate quarters. Later the same day he went with Mr. Raborn to her separate quarters, packed the effects and took them to his residence.

January 19, 1948, Hayton recorded the deed in question. He was arrested the same day. He told the authorities that, at their meeting, in exchange for the deeds, he had given his wife three thousand dollars in cash and his note for seventeen thousand dollars. He claimed that he had cached in an Oregon cave seventeen thousand dollars with which to pay the note. Subsequently, he confessed the murder and admitted that the story about the cache was a hoax.

Mrs. Raborn was appointed administratrix of her sister's estate and brought this action to cancel the deed on the theory that it had not been delivered and that it had been obtained by fraud, force and violence. Hayton appeals from a judgment favorable to the estate.

Appellant invokes the rule that possession of a deed by the grantee raises a presumption of delivery rebuttable only by clear and convincing evidence. He did not testify at the trial and no witness was called on his behalf. He stands upon the uncorroborated presumption and contends that respondent's evidence does not clearly and convincingly rebut it,--especially if certain challenged evidence is excluded.

Appellant contends that two items of evidence were admitted erroneously. First, he challenges the admission of the detective's testimony regarding appellant's statements during the murder investigation which the court admitted for the purpose of impeaching appellant's credibility. He contends this was error because he did not place his credibility in issue by taking the stand.

The court need not give a reason for admitting evidence and if it volunteers a wrong one it is not error if the evidence is admissible for any purpose.

The challenged testimony was in the nature of admissions of a party-opponent. What a party has said, provided it is unprivileged and relevant, is admissible against him. Hart v. Pratt, 19 Wash. 560, 568, 53 P. 711; Simons v. Cissna, 60 Wash. 141, 147, 110 P. 1011; Daniel v. Daniel, 106 Wash. 659, 675, 181 P. 215; Proctor v. Appelby, 110 Wash. 403, 416, 188 P. 481; Barnett v. Bull, 141 Wash. 139, 140, 250 P. 955, noted in 118 A.L.R. 1237.

Moreover, undenied admissions of a party-opponent have substantial weight. Kennett v. Federici, 200 Wash. 156, 93 P.2d 333.

Second, appellant contends that the attorney's testimony that decedent did not intend to deliver the deed until she had been paid (it is unquestioned that she was not paid) was erroneously admitted because it was hearsay.

Exception is made to the rule excluding hearsay when the state of mind or intention of a person is in question if the court finds that two circumstances concur: (1) if there is some degree of necessity to use out-of-court, uncross-examined declarations, and (2) if there is circumstantial probability of the trustworthiness of the out-of-court, uncross-examined declarations. 5 Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed. (1940), §§ 1361-1364, 1420-23; 6 Wigmore, ibid., §§ 1714-1725; Sugden v. St. Leonards, L.R. 1 P.D. 154 (1876); Elmer v. Fessenden, 151 Mass. 359, 24 N.E. 208, 5 L.R.A. 724; Holyoke v. Holyoke's Estate, 110 Me. 469, 87 A. 40, 46.

The first circumstance is present here because the grantor is dead. The second circumstance is present because an adult woman in the privacy of her attorney's office, dealing with her lifetime's accumulation of property in a transaction involving a property settlement in contemplation of divorce, ordinarily speaks soberly and truthfully of her intentions.

A deed does not take effect until delivery. A delivery requires the grantor's intent that it should take effect. Anderson v. Ruberg, 20 Wash.2d 103, 145 P.2d 890. Possession by the grantee raises a presumption of delivery, with its included intent, that can be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence. Jackson v. Lamar, 58 Wash. 383, 108 P. 946. To rebut this presumption the relevancy of evidence bearing on the grantor's intent is obvious.

A relevant state of mind may be proven by the person's own, out-of-court, uncross-examined, concurrent statements as to its existence. See Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 12 S.Ct. 909, 36 L.Ed. 706, the cause célébre discussed by Maguire, The Hillmon Case--Thirty-three Years After, 38 Harv.Law Rev. 709; Williams v. Kidd, 170 Cal. 631, 151 P. 1, Ann.Cas.1916E, 703, discussed with similar cases by McBaine, Admissibility of Declarations, 19 Calif.Law Rev. 231, 249-254; Horsman v. Maden, 48 Cal.App.2d 635, 120 P.2d 92, 100; American Employers Ins. Co. v. Wentworth, 90 N.H. 112, 5 A.2d 265, 268; Barney Cockburn & Sons v. Lane, 45 N.M. 542, 119 P.2d 104, 108; Gross v. Rothensies, D.C.E.D.Pa., 56 F.Supp. 340; Nolan v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 326 Ill.App. 328, 61 N.E.2d 876, 884; 6 Wigmore, op, cit., §§ 1725, 1729; Morgan, A Suggested Classification of Utterances Admissible as Res Gestae, 31 Yale, L.J. 229, 233-236; McCormick, Evidence of Declarations of Testators in Texas, 4 Texas Law Rev. 170; Hutchins and Slesinger, Some Observations On the Law of Evidence--State of Mind to Prove An Act, 38 Yale L.J. 283; Hutchins and Slesinger, Some Observations On The Law of Evidence: State of Mind In Issue, 29 Col.Law Rev. 147; McBaine, op. cit., 19 Calif.Law Rev. 231, 240-45; Hinton, States of Mind and The Hearsay Rule, 1 Univ. of Chicago Law Rev. 394, 398 et. seq., Morgan, Res Gestae, 12 Wash.Law Rev. 91, 100-111; 5 Univ. of Chicago Law Rev. 303, 4; American Law Institute's Model Code of Evidence, Rule 513, Comment (a); 20 Am.Jur. 491, Evidence § 585, State of Mind, Intent, Malice and Motive.

The rule is a familiar one to this court. We have recognized and applied the rule unconditionally. Klein v. Knights, Etc., 87 Wash. 179, 151 P. 241, L.R.A.1916B, 816, noted in 86 A.L.R. 138, 158 and Ann.Cas.1918C, 1050; Harringer v. Keenan, 117 Wash. 311, 314-315, 201 P. 306, noted in 82 A.L.R. 822, 832, 842; Doke v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 15 Wash.2d 536, 539-542, 131 P.2d 436, 135 P.2d 71. Noted in 20 Am.Jur. 491.

In other cases we have applied the rule to admit the challenged evidence but the rule itself was not identified. Leonard v. Territory, 2 Wash.T. 381, 396, 7 P. 872; Beach v. Brown, 20 Wash. 266, 271, 55 P. 46, 43 A.L.R. 114, 72 Am.St.Rep. 98, noted in 82 A.L.R. 822, 832, 847; State v. Mayer, 154 Wash. 667, 673-674, 283 P. 195, noted in 113 A.L.R. 264, 274, 303.

In other cases we have recognized the rule but have excluded the challenged evidence on other grounds. Stanley v. Stanley, 27 Wash. 570, 574-578, 68 P. 187, noted in 4 A.L.R. 492, 504, and in 82 A.L.R. 822, 832, 842, 861; Jones v. Jones, 96 Wash. 172, 175-176, 164 P. 757,

noted in 4 A.L.R. 492, 505.

The court has been mindful that evidence of this type (1) may be misused by the jury and (2) is easily fabricated. For example, the rule has been applied to admit the challenged evidence only if used for limited purposes or only if accompanied with limiting instructions to the jury. State v. Power, 24 Wash. 34, 41, 63 P....