Rise v. Steckel

• Decision Date: 15 December 1982
• Docket Number: No. A7905-02322,A7905-02322
• Citation: 652 P.2d 364,59 Or.App. 675
• Parties: James M. RISE, Appellant, v. James R. STECKEL, Respondent. ; CA A20395.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

Page 364

652 P.2d 364

59 Or.App. 675

James M. RISE, Appellant, v. James R. STECKEL, Respondent.

No. A7905-02322; CA A20395.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 27, 1982.

Decided Oct. 13, 1982.

Reconsideration Denied Nov. 23, 1982.

Review Denied Dec. 15, 1982.

Ferris F. Boothe, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs, for appellant.

Richard Dobbins, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief, for respondent.

Before BUTTLER, P.J., and WARDEN and WARREN, JJ.

WARREN, Judge.

Plaintiff brought this proceeding for a declaratory judgment. He seeks a declaration that he has a life estate in a residence occupied by defendant and a judgment for the fair rental value of the residence during ten years of defendant's occupancy. ¹ Defendant's answer asserted the affirmative defense of laches and a counterclaim of adverse possession. The trial court decided that plaintiff's real property claims were barred by laches. We reverse.

The residence at issue is located at 8923 S.E. Reedway Street, in Portland. The residence and an adjoining lot were owned by Opal Brown until her death in 1963. Opal was Alice Steckel's mother and plaintiff's grandmother.

In 1962, Opal executed a will. Plaintiff testified that Opal told him the will gave the residence to him, subject to a life estate in Alice. Errol Lamb testified about statements and actions of Alice concerning Opal's will that he observed shortly after Opal's death. At the time Lamb made the observations, he was married to Marilyn Steckel, daughter of defendant and Alice and half-sister of plaintiff. Lamb testified as follows:

"Q. [MR. BOOTHE:] And did--was there an incident that occurred in which a document alleged to be a will was burned?

"A. Yes, there was. I was in the kitchen.

"Q. Would you tell the Court what happened?

"A. I was in the kitchen drinking coffee, and Jim Steckel and Alice were in the bedroom talking, periodically, for a long period of time on and off.

"They had been in and out of the bedroom, which was off of the kitchen by the bathroom. I was in there with Marilyn, drinking coffee.

"I'm hazy--I don't really have a vivid recollection of Jim Steckel. He stayed in the bedroom. If Jim Steckel had left prior to Alice coming out--but Alice came out, talking and crying, and talking to Marilyn, and had the will with her and said, 'This leaves--'

"MR. DOBBINS: Your Honor, I object. This is all hearsay."

The trial court sustained the objection, and plaintiff offered the evidence under the rule.

"Q. [MR. BOOTHE:] Just so you understand this: The Judge has ruled in his ruling that this is inadmissible. But to preserve our record, for a possible appeal, it comes under the rule of whether the Court and maybe the appellate court can reconsider whether it should be heard by the Court.

"A. Okay. As I said, I don't know if Jim came out--out through the bedroom into the living room and passed through. After, he certainly was not in the room when this will was burned.

"Marilyn and her mother at that time were talking. Her mother was crying and saying, 'I hate to do this, but Nan has left everything to Jimmy, and she's left me a lifetime estate. But Jimmy and Jim Steckel hate each other, and Jim Steckel would have no place to go and, you know, I'm dying of cancer.'

"She and Marilyn discussed this. 'Besides, Nan only left you some garnet earrings and a necklace.' And she said, 'Now, if I burn this will, then I can leave Jim Steckel a lifetime estate, and Jimmy will get the property after because I'll leave that to him.'

"Q. And then what happened?

"A. Then she burned the will and put it in the front--there's a trashburner in front of the stove. And she set the will on fire and put it in there.

"MR. BOOTHE: We're out from under the rule. I would again offer that testimony.

"THE COURT: Very well."

Opal's estate was administered without a will by Alice in 1965. As Opal's sole heir, Alice inherited the residence and the adjoining lot. Shortly before her death in 1965, Alice executed two deeds disposing of her real property. She conveyed the adjoining lot to defendant in fee simple and disposed of the residence as follows: a life estate for herself and defendant, providing that if defendant survived her, his life estate would exist only until he remarried, then a life estate for plaintiff, so long as he paid the taxes levied on the residence when due, and finally a fee simple to Marilyn Steckel.

On December 12, 1965, Alice died, and defendant's life estate in the residence began. Less than two months later, on January 24, 1966, defendant married Berna Miller, and his life estate ended.

A wedding reception was held at the residence at issue on the day of defendant's remarriage. The reception included the usual indicia of a wedding reception: a cake, presents and napkins and plates imprinted with "wedding." Although plaintiff was not invited, he attended the reception because he believed his former wife, Shirley, was there. When plaintiff entered the reception, the wedding cake was concealed in an oven. Plaintiff maintains that he did not realize the gathering was a wedding reception and that he did not see the cake, napkins or plates, because he "only had eyes for Shirley."

Defendant and Berna lived at the residence from 1966 to 1978. Plaintiff knew that defendant was living with Berna, but he testified that he did not know of defendant's remarriage until 1978 when defendant told him that he and Berna were getting divorced. Between 1966 and 1978, plaintiff asked defendant many times whether he had remarried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always denied that he had remarried but said instead that he was "shacking up" with Berna. Plaintiff's wife testified that on one occasion she heard defendant tell plaintiff that he was not married to Berna. Defendant testified that he neither affirmed nor denied to plaintiff that he had remarried but that he avoided responding to plaintiff's questions. Marilyn and defendant's next door neighbor testified that they each had informed plaintiff in 1966 of defendant's remarriage.

On May 17, 1979, plaintiff initiated this action in equity to recover possession of the residence. The trial court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment relevant to the real property are as follows:

"FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

" * * *

"As to plaintiff's declaratory judgment seeking a declaration of rights as to real property, the court finds that plaintiff intentionally delayed an unreasonable length of time of more than 13 years before asserting his right to succeed as life tenant to the property. Defendant showed by clear and convincing evidence that plaintiff knew of the marriage of the defendant for the entire period of the marriage and chose to do nothing until after defendant's divorce at a time when plaintiff was forced to leave a former residence due to a condemnation proceeding by the City of Portland.

"The Doctrine of Laches should be invoked. Plaintiff's delay in asserting his claim to the real property worked to the prejudice and disadvantage of the defendant. Defendant sold adjacent land which he held in fee simple and used the proceeds of said sale for reinvestment into the subject property. Defendant made a good faith effort to maintain the premises and paid substantial property taxes over a 14 year period. There was clear and convincing evidence that plaintiff did not timely exercise his right to his life estate while defendant was married.

"JUDGMENT

"NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DECREED:

"Defendant's life estate will remain intact under the terms and conditions of the original deed and will terminate upon remarriage or his death. The life estate of plaintiff will ensue until plaintiff's death, or so long as plaintiff pays property taxes as required under the deed, at which time, the land will inure to the benefit of Marilyn Wood, or the land will inure to the benefit of either James Steckel or his estate by bargain and sale deed."

Plaintiff makes three assignments of error: first, the trial court erred by applying laches, because the clean hands doctrine should have prevented defendant from asserting laches and because defendant did not meet his burden of proving the defense; second, the trial court erred in the portion of its decree concerning the ownership of the property after the life estates of defendant and plaintiff, because the eventual ownership of the property was not at issue in the suit; and third, the trial court erred by failing to admit into evidence Lamb's testimony of Alice's statements and actions concerning the burning of Opal's will. Because of our decision, we need not address defendant's second assignment of error.

The principles underlying the general rule that one who comes into equity must have clean hands have been expressed as follows:

" ' * * * [E]quity refuses to lend its aid in any manner to one seeking its active interposition, who has been guilty of unlawful or inequitable conduct in the matter with relation to which he seeks relief. Equity denies affirmative relief for such conduct * * *.

" 'The maxim is based on conscience and good faith. It is not strictly or primarily a matter of defense, but is invoked on grounds of public policy and for the protection of the integrity of the court.' " (Emphasis in original.) Taylor et ux v. Grant et al, 204 Or. 10, 24, 279 P.2d 479, 279 P.2d 1037, 281 P.2d 704 (1955) (quoting 30 C.J.S. 475, Equity, § 93 (1965)).

" ' * * * While a court of equity endeavors to promote and enforce justice, good faith, uprightness, fairness, and conscientiousness on the part of the parties who occupy a defensive position in judicial controversies, it no less stringently demands the same from the litigant parties who come before it as plaintiffs or actors in such controversies. This fundamental principle is expressed in the maxim, He who comes into a court of equity must come with clean hands * * *.' "...