Spears v. Dizick

• Decision Date: 16 June 2010
• Docket Number: A137657.,060910130
• Parties: Wayne A. SPEARS and Dixie J. Spears Read, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Kelly Edward DIZICK, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

235 Or.App. 594

234 P.3d 1037

Wayne A. SPEARS and Dixie J. Spears Read, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Kelly Edward DIZICK, Defendant-Respondent.

060910130; A137657.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 29, 2009.

Decided June 16, 2010.

Erin K. Olson argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.

Samuel C. Justice, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before WOLLHEIM, Presiding Judge, and BREWER, Chief Judge, and SERCOMBE, Judge.^*

WOLLHEIM, P.J.

This case arises out of two deeds purporting to convey interests in the same piece of real property. Specifically, in 1999, Billie Spears (grandmother) executed a deed purporting to convey to defendant (grandson) a remainder interest in her home and retain a life estate. Later, in 2000, grandmother executed another deed purporting to convey the same property jointly to herself and plaintiffs, who are her son and daughter (children). After grandmother's death, children filed this action against grandson. They alleged that the 1999 deed to grandson had been the product of undue influence and, based thereon, included in their complaint claims for elder abuse, ejectment, and declaratory relief. After trial, the jury returned a verdict for grandson on the elder abuse and ejectment claims, and the trial court entered judgment for grandson based on that verdict. In addition, the trial court entered judgment against children and in favor of grandson on the declaratory relief claim, which had been tried to the court. Children appeal the judgment only insofar as it relates to the claim for declaratory relief. We affirm.

We begin by addressing our standard of review in this case. Children contend that their claim for declaratory relief, in which they sought a judgment declaring them to be the sole owners of the property at issue, is equitable in nature. Therefore, they assert, we should review the case de novo. See ORS 19.415(3) (2007).¹ According to grandson, however, children's claim for declaratory relief is in the nature of an ejectment, an action at law. In actions at law, we review the trial court's judgment to determine if it is supported by any competent evidence. McIntyre v. Photinos, 175 Or.App. 478, 482, 28 P.3d 1259 (2001).

“Declaratory judgment proceedings can be legal or equitable in nature, depending on the nature of the case and the relief sought.” Ken Leahy Construction, Inc. v. Cascade General, Inc., 329 Or. 566, 571, 994 P.2d 112 (1999). We examine children's complaint to determine the nature of the case and relief sought. See Lisoski v. Broehl, 235 Or.App. 57, 230 P.3d 63 (2010). In the complaint, children brought several claims for relief. As noted, the only claim at issue on appeal is the claim relating to the request for declaratory relief. However, because of their importance in explaining the standard of review that we apply in this case, we describe the claims for both declaratory relief and ejectment.

Children alleged in the complaint that grandson had resided at the subject property “[f]rom approximately 1979” and “has continued to reside at that location through the time of the filing of” the complaint. Children asserted that the 1999 deed, in which grandmother purported to convey to grandson a remainder interest in the property, was the product of grandson's exercise of undue influence and duress. In their request for declaratory relief, children sought a declaration that “[children] in their individual capacities [are] the sole owners in fee simple of” the property. Similarly, with respect to the ejectment claim, they sought a judgment “[t]hat [children] in their individual capacities are the sole owners in fee simple of” the property. Children also sought possession of the property and damages.

In general, a person may bring an equitable quiet title action to obtain resolution of a dispute relating to adverse or conflicting claims to real property. See ORS 105.605; McIntyre, 175 Or.App. at 482, 28 P.3d 1259. At first blush, the declaration sought by children-that they are the sole owners of the property-appears to be in the nature of a quiet title claim. However, a party who is not in possession of land may not maintain a quiet title action against a party in possession; such a party must seek relief by way of an ejectment action. Yaquina Bay Timber v. Shiny Rock Mining, 276 Or. 779, 781 n. 1, 556 P.2d 672 (1976); see ORS 105.005. Thus, in this case, because grandson was in actual possession of the property, children could not maintain an equitable action to quiet title against him. Instead, their relief, if any, would have to be obtained by ejectment, an action at law.

An ejectment action can resolve title to land. See Weatherford v. McKay, 59 Or. 558, 560, 117 P. 969 (1911); ORS 105.055 (“[T]he judgment in an action to recover the possession of real property is conclusive as to the estate in the property and the right to the possession thereof.”). Furthermore through ejectment, children could and did seek to obtain possession of the property and damages. In fact, the request for declaratory judgment in this case sought a subset of the relief requested in children's ejectment claim. “Equitable relief does not lie if there is an adequate remedy at law. The remedy at law must be practical, efficient, and adequate, as full a remedy as that which can be obtained in equity.” Alsea Veneer, Inc. v. State of Oregon, 318 Or. 33, 43, 862 P.2d 95 (1993) (citation omitted). Under the circumstances of this case, full relief was available to children by way of an action at law. Through an ejectment action, they could not only resolve title to the subject property, but also obtain possession thereof. Given that grandson was in actual possession of the property and, therefore, children could maintain only an action in ejectment and not a quiet title claim, we have no trouble concluding that the claim for declaratory relief is more like an ejectment and, therefore, reviewed under the standard applicable to actions at law. Cf. Lisoski, 235 Or.App. at 60, 230 P.3d 63 (although declaration with respect to rightful possession of personal property was in nature of an action at law, additional factual circumstances made case equitable in nature). Accordingly, we are bound by the trial court's factual findings if there is any evidence in the record to support them.²

The trial court found the following facts of this case.³ Grandmother became the sole owner of the property in 1974. Starting in 1979, grandson resided at the property with grandmother. He continued to live there after her death and through the time of trial. On June 11, 1999, grandmother executed a deed retaining a life estate in the property and conveying the remainder interest to grandson.

Witnesses described grandmother as sharp, independent, and outspoken, and as doing exactly as she pleased. Further, according to the trial...