Snell v. Stickler, 5657

• Citation: 50 Idaho 648,299 P. 1080
• Decision Date: 14 May 1931
• Docket Number: 5657
• Parties: ED. SNELL, LUCY SNELL, EMMA SNELL PEDERSON and JULIA RUSKY, Respondents, v. J. C. STICKLER, and ANNIE M. STICKLER, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

299 P. 1080

50 Idaho 648

ED. SNELL, LUCY SNELL, EMMA SNELL PEDERSON and JULIA RUSKY, Respondents, v. J. C. STICKLER, and ANNIE M. STICKLER, Appellants

No. 5657

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 14, 1931

QUIETING TITLE-COMMUNITY PROPERTY-CONVEYANCE TO MARRIED WOMAN-PRESUMPTION.

1. In action to quiet title, parties must recover on strength of own title.

2. Every conveyance to married woman is presumed to be community property.

3. In action to quiet title to property, levied on and sold as community property, burden rested on husband and wife to prove gift solely to wife.

4. In action to quiet title to property levied on and sold as community property, determination of whether gift was made solely to wife held for trial court.

5. Finding, in action to quiet title to property levied on and sold as community property, that conveyance was to community held supported.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.

Action to quiet title. Judgment for plaintiffs. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondents. Petition for rehearing denied.

Rhodes & Estabrook, for Appellants.

The evidence is undisputed that the original property was given to Mrs. Stickler and that she always considered it as hers and likewise did Stickler; and, as between them there can be no question but that Mrs. Stickler could rightfully claim the property as her own, and the same rule applies to one who is not an innocent purchaser for value and without notice. ( Peck v. Brummagim, 31 Cal. 440, 89 Am. Dec. 195.)

S. Ben Dunlap, for Respondents.

This court has held in a long list of cases that all property acquired by either spouse during coverture is presumed to be community property, and the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts it to be separate property to show such fact by a preponderance of the evidence. (Clifford v Lake, 33 Idaho 77, 190 P. 714; Chaney v. Gauld &amp Co., 28 Idaho 76, 152 P. 468; Vaughan v. Hollingsworth, 35 Idaho 722, 208 P. 838; Ahlstrom v. Tage, 31 Idaho 459, 174 P. 605; Oylear v. Oylear, 35 Idaho 732, 208 P. 857.)

GIVENS, J. Budge, Varian and McNaughton, JJ., and Babcock, D. J., concur.

OPINION

GIVENS, J.

Respondents, purchasers at execution sale of certain property, levied on and sold as the community property of appellants, having received a sheriff's deed thereto, sued herein to quiet title against appellants who contend that the property is the separate property of Mrs. Stickler, acquired by her through various trades and transfers by reason of a gift of property originally made to Mrs. Stickler by Mr. Stickler's brother, a number of years prior.

The court found in favor of respondents, evidently on the theory that the gift was to the community, and not to Mrs. Stickler as her sole and separate estate, though he may with propriety have questioned the sufficiency of the tracing of the transmutations of the property.

In a suit to quiet title, each party must recover on the strength of his own title (Wing v. Wallace, 42 Idaho 430, 246 P. 8; Steinour v. Oakley State Bank, 45 Idaho 472, 262 P. 1052), and every conveyance to a married woman is presumed to be to the community (Moore v. Croft, 47 Idaho 568, 277 P. 425), the burden of proof therefore rested on appellants to prove a gift solely to Mrs. Stickler. ( McMillan v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 48 Idaho 163, 280 P. 220.)

The only testimony touching directly upon the question of the gift was presented by Mr. and Mrs. Stickler, and while we would not say that the evidence would not support findings and conclusions that a gift as contended by Mrs. Stickler, had been made, to reverse this judgment would require that we substitute our judgment as to what conclusions should be drawn, from a cold record, for the conclusions of the trial judge, made from the same testimony, coupled with the presence of the live witnesses, noting their actions, demeanor, candor and apparent truthfulness.

There were no rights of creditors involved at the time of the transfer to Mrs. Stickler of the property in question. There was no recital in the deed...