Spaulding v. Collins

• Decision Date: 16 January 1909
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: SPAULDING v. COLLINS et al.

99 P. 306

51 Wash. 488

SPAULDING v. COLLINS et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 16, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; A. W. Frater, Judge.

Action by C. M. Spaulding against Angie B. Collins and others. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff and defendant Valeria M Spaulding appeal. Affirmed.

Fairchild & Bruce, for appellants.

Hughes, McMicken, Dovell & Ramsey, for respondents.

MOUNT J.

The appellant C. M. Spaulding brought this action against the estate and heirs of John Collins, deceased, and also against Valeria M. Spaulding, alleging that certain real estate in King county was conveyed by the appellants to John Collins in trust, and he prayed that the trust be declared, the property sold, that an accounting be had between the appellants and the estate of said Collins and that the balance, if any, be paid to the appellants. The estate and heirs of John Collins, deceased, denied that there was any trust, and Valeria M. Spaulding answered by way of cross-complaint, alleging substantially the facts set up in the complaint. After a trial, the court concluded that the alleged trust deed was the result of an express trust which could not be proved by parol, that there was no other evidence of a trust, that the deed was not a mortgage, and that the appellants are now barred by laches, and therefore dismissed the action. The plaintiff, C. M. Spaulding, and cross-complainant, Valeria M. Spaulding, have appealed.

The facts are substantially as follows: In the year 1885 the appellants were husband and wife. They lived in Seattle upon six lots, being the lots in question, which lots were then their community property. These lots were mortgaged for $4,100, one mortgage for $3,500 upon four of them, and another mortgage for $600 upon the other two. C. M Spaulding at that time was owing many debts which were unsecured. Some or all of these debts were surety and personal obligations. In August, 1885, the holder of the mortgage for $3,500 brought an action to foreclose the same, and on October 27, 1885, a decree of foreclosure was entered for $4,055.33 and $202.76 costs. On the next day, viz., October 28, 1885, while that action was pending, and while the appellant Valeria M. Spaulding was living upon the property, she and her husband, for an expressed consideration of $1, executed and delivered a deed conveying the property to John Collins, subject to the mortgage for $3,500. There was nothing in the deed itself to show a trust, and there was no written declaration of trust; but the oral evidence is to the effect that Collins paid nothing for the deed of conveyance, and that he was requested by Mrs. Spaulding and one J. M. Colman to take the title to the lots so as to protect the same from the claims of creditors of C. M. Spaulding. Afterwards there was some talk between Mr. Colman and Mr. Collins, to the effect that they together would help Mrs. Spaulding redeem from the mortgage foreclosure, and hold the property or sell it and, after reimbursing themselves for expenses, pay the balance, if any, to Mrs. Spaulding. Mr. Colman thereafter advanced some $2,756 to Mr. Collins for that purpose, and Mr. Collins advanced a much larger amount. After the execution of this deed, Mrs. Spaulding continued to reside upon the property, which was improved with a house and barn and a small orchard. At the time of the execution of this deed, the grantors were not indebted to the grantee, and there was no fiduciary relation existing between them, and there was no obligation on the part of the grantee to redeem the property from the mortgages, and no obligation on the part of the grantors to repay the money which the grantee might thereafter advance. Appellant C. M. Spaulding left Seattle about this time and went to Portland, Or., where he secured a divorce from Valeria M. Spaulding on May 17, 1888. Since that time the appellants have lived apart. After taking the deed above mentioned, Mr. Collins advanced considerable sums of money for the payment of taxes, grade and sidewalk assessments, and interest on the mortgage debt, until January, 1890, when he paid the amount due on the mortgage which had been foreclosed, and the judgment of foreclosure was satisfied. In the year 1891, Mr. Collins and wife mortgaged all the property in question, with other property, to secure debts of their own. About the time these mortgages were given by Mr. Collins, some new arrangement was made between Mr. Collins and Mrs. Spaulding; but the nature of that arrangement is not shown, except that thereafter Mr. Collins advanced small sums of money to Mrs. Spaulding, who continued to reside upon the property. Later, in 1894 and 1897, these mortgages were foreclosed, and the property sold to third parties; but afterwards, in 1899, Mr. Collins repurchased the property. Between the years 1893 and 1899, the value of the property did not exceed the cost to Mr. Collins; but, after the year 1899, the value began to appreciate, until at the time of the trial the value of the property was about $65,000. In the year 1903, Mr. Collins died, and his executors took charge of the property. It was shown that Mr. Collins during his lifetime kept separate accounts of all his property. The cost, expenses, and improvements were charged against each property owned by him or in which he was interested, and the revenue therefrom was credited to each. An account of this kind was kept of the property in question. It was denominated the 'Spaulding Property a/c,' which showed that this property on January 1, 1903, had cost him more than $20,000. Mrs. Spaulding never paid any rent for the use of the property, but has resided thereon to the present time, and since she has been in possession Mr. Collins and his employés have made all improvements and looked after the property generally. At one time, in about the year 1889, it was proposed to sell the property; but Mrs. Spaulding objected, and the sale was not made. In the year 1901, Mr. Coleman suggested that then would be a good time to sell the property so that he and Mr. Collins could both get their money out of it. Mr. Collins consented, but no sale was made. In the year 1905, or more than 20 years after the making of the deed, the appellant C. M. Spaulding brought this action to declare the deed a trust deed. This is, in brief, the substance of the material facts.

It is contended by the appellants that the continued possession of Valeria M. Spaulding is such part performance of the trust agreement as to take the case out of the rule that an express trust in real property may not be shown by parol evidence, and that if Mr. Collins took the title as security for future advances, and afterwards conceived the notion of keeping the property for his own, he became a trustee ex maleficio, which may be shown by parol. As to the appellant C. M. Spaulding, we are satisfied that he is barred by laches from claiming any interest in the property. He parted with all his interest in the property,...