Stevens v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 11 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 5667,5667 |
| Citation | 256 P.2d 712,75 Ariz. 331 |
| Parties | STEVENS v. ANDERSON. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Udall & Udall, of Tucson, for appellant.
Glenn Ginn and Ashby I. Lohse, of Tucson, for appellees.
We are presented with a contest between Annie L. Stevens, appellant, and James E. Anderson, executor of the estate of R. L. Anderson, deceased, appellee. Decedent departed this life in April, 1951, and appellee was appointed executor of his will, which instrument devises to appellant $5,000 and a life estate in a furnished home and the residue to the brother and sisters of decedent. The entire estate was appraised at $43,135.62 as the separate property of the decedent. Appellant filed a verified claim and objection to the inventory and appraisement, wherein she alleges in substance that about the year 1918 she and deceased commenced to live and cohabit as man and wife and that they held themselves out as such until has death; that she performed the usual duties and services of a wife; that he promised her she would be well cared for after his death and that he wished her to have her fair share of the proceeds of their joint accumulations. She further alleges that she in good faith relied on these representations and permitted all the property to be taken in his name, and that all the property mentioned in the inventory was accumulated while they lived together through their joint efforts, savings and management.
Subsequent to the joinder of issue on the foregoing claim, appellant's deposition was taken and therein it appeared that they had lived together as husband and wife for the period alleged and at times they represented themselves to be lawfully wedded; that when this illicit relationship began he had some property and she had none, and that she at one time loaned him $318 to make payment on a citrus farm. She further testified that at one time she suggested marriage, but after some discussion none resulted; that he never lied to her nor misled her in any way. Concerning what provision was to be made for her, she testified as follows:
Pursuant to motion of appellee summary judgment was rendered against appellant, thus presenting the problem of whether there was any genuine issue of fact, concerning which proof might be submitted at the trial, that could possibly warrant recovery by appellant of a portion of the estate property, in addition to that given in the will.
When motion for summary judgment is presented, it becomes the duty of the trial court to examine the entire record and determine whether there is any disputed material fact which if true could have a bearing on the kind of final judgment which under the law should be rendered. If it appears that competent evidence will be submitted tending to prove or disprove such material fact, the determination of the existence thereof must depend upon the evidence submitted at the trial. The court does not try issues of fact, but only whether the same are genuine and in good faith disputed. The mere general statement in a pleading, when attacked by such motion supported by proof of specific facts in the form of affidavit or deposition, places on the author of the statement the obligation to present something which will show that when the date of trial arrives, he will have some proof to support the allegation in the pleading. He cannot withhold this showing until the time of trial. He has not the right to say that he has made a negative or contradictory allegation and has therefore created a genuine issue and might have evidence to support it. Commentary, 'Genuineness' of Issues on Summary Judgment, 1941, 4 Federal Rules Serv. 940. To permit such proceeding would defeat the very purpose of summary judgment practice. Engl v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 2 Cir., 139 F.2d 469. This practice was established for protection against compelling one to submit to the delay, expense and harassment of litigation upon mere assertions, when it is shown that competent evidence cannot be presented to prove same.
When tested by the foregoing principles, the record in this case presents an allegation that deceased continuously represented that upon his death appellant should have a fair share of their joint accumulations. On her deposition as to what he represented she said, 'He just said that I would be well cared for', but he did not tell her how such care would be provided. Appellant is certainly bound by her own statement, and when asked concerning the representation, it was her obligation to, and no doubt she did, correctly relate the same. Her statement amounts to an admission that there were no other representations, and the court therefore was required to give compelling force to her testimony and to decide that on this subject the facts were undisputed. It would not be warranted in requiring the appellee to submit to the delay and expense of trial on the mere possibility that appellant might at that time present a different situation. The fact that the allegation is under oath does not strengthen her position in the face of her deposition. The general allegation under oath must give way as against her own deposition which shows that the claimed representation that she was to have a fair share of the accumulations is unfounded. Brensinger v. Margaret Ann Super Markets, 5 Cir., 192 F.2d 458.
It is alleged that the property was accumulated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warner v. Warner
...114 Cal.App.2d 772, 251 P.2d 67, 252 P.2d 55; Union Bank & Trust Co. v. Gordon, 116 Cal.App.2d 681, 254 P.2d 644; Stevens v. Anderson, 75 Ariz. 331, 256 P.2d 712; Bridges v. Bridges, 125 Cal.App.2d 359, 270 P.2d 69; Cline v. Festersen, 128 Cal.App.2d 380, 275 P.2d 149; Shore v. Shore, Cal.,......
-
Brooks v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona, 1
... ... Overholt, Chief Counsel, Indus. Com'n of Ariz., Phoenix, for respondent ... O'Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Westover, Killingsworth & Beshears, P.A. by Donald L. Cross, Larry L. Smith, Phoenix, for respondents employer/carrier ... ...
-
Tyranski v. Piggins
...Idaho 460, 465, 444 P.2d 421, 426 (1968); Humphries v. Riveland, 67 Wash.2d 376, 389, 407 P.2d 967, 973 (1965); Stevens v. Anderson, 75 Ariz. 331, 336, 256 P.2d 712, 715 (1953); Smith v. Smith, 255 Wis. 96, 99, 38 N.W.2d 12, 14 (1949); Vallera v. Vallera, 21 Cal.2d 681, 684-- 685, 134 P.2d ......
-
Cook v. Cook, 17520-PR
...contract concerning the ownership of property, the courts will give effect to the agreement and grant relief. Stevens v. Anderson, 75 Ariz. 331, 335, 256 P.2d 712, 714-15 (1953) (emphasis supplied). This rule is in accord with recognized authority. See 6A A. Corbin, Contracts § 1476 at The ......
-
§ 1.02 Disputes Between Cohabitants
...of cases sanctioning this theory of recovery, see: Alaska: Sugg v. Morris, 392 P.2d 313 (Alaska 1964). Arizona: Stevens v. Anderson, 75 Ariz. 331, 256 P.2d 712 (1953). California: Keene v. Keene, 57 Cal.2d 657, 21 Cal. Rptr. 593, 371 P.2d 329 (1962). Iowa: In re Marriage of Martin, 681 N.W.......