Hall v. Hall

HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, Carol HALL, Defendant-Respondent.

Anthony

No. 16981.

Supreme Court of Idaho. 19,

July Setzke, Chtd., Boise, for

Swanson & Setzke, plaintiff-appellant. Raymond W. Jr., argued. Boise, Richardson, & defen-

Weston ar- dant-respondent. Richard E. Weston gued. Merrill, Pocatello, for

Merrill amicus. & argued. Wesley F. Merrill Slip No. 100 November Opinion and this substi- withdrawn tuted therefore.

ON REHEARING HUNTLEY, Justice.

This characterization appeal concerns the in a action. More of real divorce whether, specifically, the issue is title and wife conveys to a husband Received,” parol may “For Value portion to establish that be utilized conveyed conveyed estate was to have magistrate gift. as a After trial in the part division, realty held part separate. community nature appealed The to the district court wife was affirmed. The Ida- where the decision Appeals ho reversed remand- ed, ruling that not be or amended the deed could varied concur. evidence. We question is a ranch locat- Bend, ed Horseshoe Idaho. Carol near purchased the ranch in 1981 Anthony Hall $60,- grandparents for from the husband’s money 000. The property. The deed states: Received, language For Value only pertinent THOMAS R. of the deed is as FAULL, SR., also known as Thomas R. possible, stated hereinabove. Where the Faull, Faull, Thos. R. Thomas Richard give court should effect to the intention of Faull, Sr., and Thomas Faull and FLORA parties Fliegel, the to a deed. Gardner v. FAULL, wife, grantors, M. husband and 450 P.2d 990 Where hereby grant, bargain, convey sell and language plain deed the of a and unam unto ANTHONY M. HALL and CARO- biguous parties the intention of the must HALL, wife, LYN S. husband and itself, determined from the deed grantees, following described parol evidence not admissible to show premises____ intent.1 Id. Oral and written statements At grandmother, generally trial the husband’s are inadmissible to contradict or Faull, testified that the ranch was worth vary unambiguous terms contained in a $100,000 about at the time of the sale. She Brinkman, deed. French v. 60 Cal.2d indicated that the value above the Cal.Rptr. (1963); 387 P.2d 1 Neeley price was meant to be a to the husband Kelsch, (Utah 1979). P.2d 979 If the objection alone. The wife’s to this testimo- language in ambiguous, the deed is then ny overruled. surrounding evidence of all the facts and prove circumstances is admissible to magistrate The awarded ranch parties’ Fliegel, supra. intent. Gardner v. husband and characterized the ranch as parol preclude The evidence rule does not community property. The wife was 60% explain the use of extrinsic $30,000 evidence to awarded as for her reimbursement parties’ provisions intent when the of a community buy share of the funds used to writing ambiguous. are Ness v. magistrate Greater ranch. The ruled that the Inc., remaining Realty, Arizona 117 Ariz. was a to the husband 40% Where, here, (App.1977). separate therefore was his clearly consideration clause recites The ranch was determined to that the be worth $100,000 Received,” transfer made “For acquired when it was and worth Value $120,000 parol at the The is not time the divorce. admissible contra $20,000 by attempting enhancement was dict the deed divided between show parties by community the ratio of part “gift” transfer was in rather than separate property interests found. After “for value.” deducting community from the com- debts of Mrs. relied enhancement, munity’s share of the support the trial court to its character- wife was awarded for her share property, ization of the ranch was not ad- of the in the interest ranch. Therefore, we remand to the missible. brings appeal challenge Carol Hall magistrate court for a re-characterization proper- the court’s characterization of the after a of the admis- review (1) ty. She contends: that Mrs. Faull’s adjustment sible evidence and testimony concerning intent donative violat- appropriate. property division as Costs to rule; (2) ed the that I.C. appellant, attorney fees awarded. prohibits chang- the Faulls from 55-606 § deed; and, (3) ing the terms of the recorded JOHNSON, JJ., BISTLINE and finding

that the of a was not based on concur. convincing clear and evidence. The first SHEPARD, J., sat but did dispositive; not ad- issue is hence we will participate untimely due to his death. dress second and third issues. BISTLINE, Justice, specially Hall contends that the deed Carol concurring. Anthony she and took the ranch which unambiguous, Carol Hall’s first brief filed this Court plain and therefore suggested by parol evidence. The cannot be varied “that the Court review the en- recognized exceptions such ous documents or where it can be established 1. There are certain contemporane- grantee is a trustee for others. as where a deed is one of several being secretly a hybrid includes record for the ‘clear and tire well, husband —to on which the lower court based evidence’ its In turn I have asked Justice substantial detriment. decision.” wife’s Bakes, and John- Huntley, Justice Justice come to a final case should have This by pointing favor me to evi- son to Appeals the of conclusion tending prove gift other than the dence to ago: years on it two passed judgment over testimony Tony Flora Hall’s of case, con In the instant the deed grandmother. No has forth- answer been Received,’ entire ‘For the veyed Value coming. surprising, because This not life estate, of a es with the reservation is no other evidence of sub- there M. Hall by grantors, ‘Anthony the to tate stance, certainly and none which mounts to Carolyn husband and wife.’ and S. convincing. the level of clear and conveyed fee the Halls The deed the to controversy The The boils down to this. unambiguously. Only the consideration had been Halls at the time the divorce by open explanation was to clause enough long daughters married to only The ‘value received’ evidence. ages years years. They and 17 came to $60,000 by was shown the evidence the All of their assets California. community funds. paid by the Halls from community property. The unambiguous clear The deed was and made com- of the farm was with conveyed. grantees and the estate the They warranty munity funds. received a Therefore, testimony claiming that the made of them. When deed out both husband $40,000 ‘gift’ solely the years some three or more later mar- attempt clarify reality an not to was in apart, Hall was informed riage fell Carol consideration but the amount of realty was not the divorce action terms the vary unambiguous other was, theirs, only and that sub- part of purpose, When offered for this deed. by belonged Tony Hall rea- part stantial parol evidence testimony the the violated having gifted son of it to him his rule. namely grandparents, Flora and her Faull community property sup- The law of Thomas Faull. husband ports The ranch was ac- our conclusion. grandparents nor can Neither the marriage commu- quired during the documentary produce single stitch of evi- pre- Thus ranch was nity funds. the support of real dence this claimed property. Stan- sumed be property. given, can Real be ger Stanger, writing required, doubt. But a I.C. can be presumption This 9-503, writing and that is called § rebutted, of proof the lies burden deed. prove sepa- party seeking to the with the The property. Id. rate character only by which The written instrument Stanger on the magistrate here relied ownership divested of their the Faulls were gave husband an Stanger, the naming Tony Hall case. their deed2 parents in ex- annuity to his present- contract grantees. The issue Carol Hall as instance, The alone change a farm. husband magistrate in the first ed to the deed, obligor on in the and as judge court was named in turn to a district annuity con- annuity then to contract. acting appellate capacity, in an case, tract, in this payment as with the first im- appeals, court of grantors for Idaho, any- compensate did not only in but pression—not Stanger of the farm. Mrs. gift of real full value namely whether an oral where— spous- any gift sustained, or, pre- both if claimed property can be meet the was able to issue, warranty deed es. The husband cisely that whether was his proving unambiguous its face can be burden wholly on provided separate property. He testimony into a judicially oral modified years old of trial Mr. Faull was estate in the Faulls in time 2. The deed reserved life property. At Faull was 86. one of the residences on showing separate gift. returns ty His acquired by gift, can shown to be parents executed to reflect new wills bequest, devise or I.C. descent. gift, presented and he oral 32-903. § the donative intent. All of this evidence To community pre overcome the case, was admitted. instant Unlike the sumption party named the deed in Stanger listed the hus- present proving sepa must grantee. Therefore, band as none of the rate source In cases deed, evidence contradicted or varied the the deed spouse, where names the rather it was consistent with the deed does not indicate that and admissible as evidence overcome separate property, evidence, includ other presumption the ranch en- the This; evidence, ing parol necessary. is tirely Moreover, community property. parol does contra vary evidence not or nowhere in Stanger the do we deed dict the and is therefore admissible. parol objection find that a rule evidence However, where the deed both names was made to the extrinsic evidence of- spouses, as same wife, husband and the grantors. fered to show the the intent of parol showing separate evidence in-' Here, magistrate the treated the necessarily This terest varies the deed. form of the deed inconclusive is by parol evidence barred the evidence determining property. the the status of inapplicable rule unless the rule is to a He relied Stanger Bowman v. Suchan, case. In divorce Suchan v. 106 Bowman, 266, 72 Idaho 240 P.2d 487 654, (1984), 682 P.2d Su 607 our (1952). In the court stated that Bowman preme applied general the rule the trial court in a action divorce unambiguous of an construction contract power is invested with to deter full agreement spouses to an in between mine the property status of the of both volved in divorce. We see no reason to j spouses, regardless each of the differently. treat a deed Our courts are the name of either in the title to by separate guided set of evidence property stands, such and the recitals seeking party rules in divorce cases. A may whatever transfers there presumption the property to rebut regarding spouses between such acquired during marriage is properties such or in thereof transfers property must stand or fall on admissible them, merely the one or other of are evidence. prima ownership, facie evidence of The determination of donative intent is only raise disputable presumptions as one which will not factual be disturbed sep to whether properties are the supported if appeal by substantial and community property arate or of the competent Stanger evidence. v. Stan- parties (Citations to such transfers. the ger, supra. same is true for omitted.) trial court’s characterization of (quoting Id. at 240 P.2d at 489 Jan- Bowman, supra. v. The fact Bowman Jansen, Cal.App. sen given weigh- finder is broad discretion in (1932). Bowman, Stanger, like ing evidence to facts. the arrive at the only spouse. naming involved a deed one However, before that discretion exer- is granting property A deed legal pass cised the evidence must the spouse property acquisition shows the admissibility. threshold of The testimo- more, during marriage, and without regarding separate ny of Mrs. Faull is commu- presumption the husband was not admissible nity applies. Stanger, supra. Stanger v. purpose put. to which it was separate character Under Bowman the 641, 642, P.2d Hall v. of the can be established (App.1987) (emphasis supplied). tracing the source of funds used to reflect, minutes of this acquire property’ separate As the Court will necessary grant spouse petition named in the votes to proper- Shepard, deed. This is were those of Justices also true where review sup- Bakes, Bistline, evidence J. not there substantial Donaldson and with both voting years case, always Huntley, deny. Two plaintiff’s J. port of Court, still with this court, later case is and in deter- question of law for the ap- might disposing of other have been credulity of mining question, this “the there concern peals. Obviously has been is not deemed commensurate courts to be applicability facility with which or vehemence dissenting opin- rule. As is noted swears____ evidence, Oral witness Justice, Bakes, strongly ion of Chief he is indepen- satisfactory which there erred Appeals of the view that the Court of corroboration, kind is the weakest dent holding applicable. I am will- that rule the law.” known to may ing appear to concede that it added.) (emphasis yet kept in mind that problem, it must be case, named In the where the Claunch peculiar set of facts should never Hall possession ques- grantee had again. surface tion, noted that the issue was this Court Solely earnest out of deference to the there clear whether Bakes supplications and cautions of Justice delivery evidence that manual had opinion, prefer out in his I as set is, unconditionally, that the made not with hinge its on the that this decision Court understanding it urged upon that would not become ground other which has been us, namely of quantum quality grantor. that the effective until the death of the presented which was to establish This Court held: warranty that the deed also intended Admitting there was no considera that gift Tony Hall te serve as a secret deed to contending, as she tion for the deed and mounting fell far of the level of short does, conveyed it the to her that convincing. clear and defendant, Phyl inter vivos the my authority some review of of the Whyte, brings within the rule lis herself Bakes, by cited Justice was led backward gifts presumed the are not that point in 73 Whyte, time tó Claunch v. beneficiary is the to establish burden 243, (1952), 915 Idaho 249 P.2d a case 125 gift. Manning, Presti v. the Lo like the one us. which much now before 1002; C.J.S., 442, Cal.App. P.2d 38 13 by Taylor The authored Justice Gifts, the donee stands Where § Givens, Porter, joined by Kee- Justices relationship fiduciary or confidential ton, my and Thomas—all of whom were donor burden is increased to the capable extremely view and conscientious requiring beneficiary the extent of jurists. by con establish the clear and question grantor’s The of a intent came vincing evidence. daughter inup that case—which involved a ‘ * * * gift is to where the executrices (and husband) claiming mother’s her that a who are shown to be fiduciaries intent deed to her had been delivered with upon proof such donees to burden for gift. judge make a The trial held clearly unequivocally prove a her daughter The had that her. testified instance, and to so gift in the time of mother’s deceased husband at the first it would be no uncer- prove that there expressed had a wish his last illness (and tainty requi- intent as to the other daughter have the Said concomitants) part here on the evidence: site “Sufficient kind regarded any question weakest nor of undue influ- donor evidence.” the donee or over ence exerted advantage donor or taken of cited In one of cases which this Court relationship existing be- confidential foregoing proposition, Herbert parties.’ In re Estate tween 409, Lankershim, P.2d 220 9 Cal.2d 640, Randall, page Court, (1937), Supreme en the California banc, question of whether 135 P.2d 299. said as to Blake, And in 214, 217, Blake v. Judge Smith broke down his clear and con- (1949), vincing where the analysis re- segments, into two “It is spondents fiduciaries, were found to clear that a was intended ... There is was said: spouses that both ‘ * * * knew the was at much less than proof burden of was on fair market value.” respondents prove or transfer appellant’s one-sixth share in the (nor Nowhere in the record can I find estate to Mrs. Jessie M. Blake any does other member of the Court come clear, satisfactory, convincing and aid) evidence other than the oral unequivocal (Emphasis evidence'. testimony of Flora Faull. Obviously she added.) expected could be testify on Tony’s be- Here, anyone where insofar as other than half, but, just as in Claunch v. Whyte, her of the purported gift Flora Faull knew testimony, oral wholly unsupported by any from her and Tony, Thomas Faull to witness, documentation or other is the only deed of the property was warranty weakest kind of evidence known in the law. exchange deed in paid by evidence, It is not cry substantial and a far Tony and Carol Hall. None of the mem- convincing. clear and very fact bers this Court in experienced any conveyed Tony Faulls and Carol trouble Claunch weight clear “[t]he Hall all of their interest against evidence is the ‘trial (reserving only estate) a life would make it finding. court’s’ finding follows that the legal impossibility to at the same time supported by is not the evidence and will supposedly orally transfer some interest in support not judgment.” 73 Idaho at very grandson same to their 250, 249 P.2d at 922. Tony by an actual written deliv- —whether exchange ered deed in for a valuable con- The facts and circumstances of this case sideration, or an actual written deed are far less Tony favorable to Hall than given only by reason of love and affection. was so with the would-be in donee do, do, What the Faulls couldn’t and didn’t Claunch case. Here there is not even a in writing, they had no chance of in success deed, any nor other scintilla of substantial doing with testimony Flora Faull’s oral Apparently magistrate evidence. which, though coming under the indi- gift of the view that the was made because self-serving cia of pecuniary as to her own facility “the or vehemence” with interest, certainly self-serving as to which Flora Faull swore to it on the wit- grandmotherly her seeing interest in to it applicable ness stand. appel- The law on grandson that her received the lion’s share late review is otherwise as stated in the of the marital estate. Claunch case. This Court should not have Moreover, pointed out in Carol Hall’s review, but, granted did, inasmuch as it Court, in first brief filed and as has specifically should also affirm the court of gone by the Appeals, unnoticed Court of and appeals on the additional basis of the fail- (other here) in turn this Court than I.C. prove gift by ure to a convincing, clear and complete Tony 55-606 stands as a bar to § unequivocal and evidence. The failure of attempt impose gift Hall’s to a on the real- the Court to fulfill its function in this re- ty which he purchased and Carol gard can spawning lead to the of and pro- Thomas Flora Faull. That section future cases such as this. vides: Although Judge Smith his written de- tending cision mentioned “other evidence to conveyance Conclusiveness of —Bona $60,000.00 gift” pur- show a and that the purchasers. Every grant fide or con- — price chase was arrived at for tax rea- veyance of an estate in real is gift capital gains sons—estate and tax and against grantor, conclusive also Stanger3 tax reasons as in record is against everyone subsequently claiming —the him, gift of evidence of except purchaser devoid returns. under a or encum- Stanger Stanger, past faith, realty good buy. a brancer, good and for a of who in consideration, acquires realty a purchases title of years or 30 most valuable duly that is by an instrument first Tony lien the main good buys. Hall was recorded. gift issue, on the after more witness readings testimony, than three of his I am transcript, p. shows that The trial pur- to he unable find where stated that the objecting to to Mrs. Carol addition very good buy, chase was a or even that testimony on evidence Faull’s good buy.4 was a grounds grounds objected also on precluded Faull from I.C. 55-606 § against militates Other which modifying testifying purposes real finding a court’s trial changing conditions of the terms and having Tony to been established estate warranty grant- deed in which she was the (oral testimo- clear and fantasy indulge in the or. Were to Tony’s testimony he and ny) Tony produce gift to Hall could deed entering into planning his mother and same which was executed purchase whereunder contract delivered, prior warranty deed con- prop- Faulls sell to the Halls the same would Carol, Tony provi- veying to under the erty Tony which and Carol did 55-606, deed sions I.C. unless the § to the ef- year testimony later.5 His prior warranty was recorded he his mother had fect the concern consideration, the which was for a valuable on the was that state and federal taxes deed would be second in time result loss deaths the Faulls would warranty inferior to the deed. would attached.) (See Appendix A valueless; grantors having conveyed legal anything permissible While it away their for a estate Carol taxes, it not be which will avoid nothing valuable consideration would have permissible enter a scheme sell give away. left to $60,000.00 $100,000.00 property case, In this Hall there to avoid make secret points specific time Flora Faull testified that inheritance tax. gift was made. Thomas Faull did not testi- gift paid purported was on the there all, fy he said of two yet at to be one the $40,- given gift. Tony’s claim that he was giftors. The trial court noted Mr. that in free —was 000.00 of real —tax years age apparently “88 Faull was of and the conspiracy to defraud furtherance of correct, may in ill R. 21. This health.” be making government parties the is, ascertain, if nearly but as as I can it at —whether the Fortunately, or not. the claim knew it in best it is correct the surmise. Nowhere to full fruition when did not come scheme transcript can that it be found witness held that the Appeals of his said absence was due to ill health— testimony. did such evidence rule not allow hence, of “apparently”. use the word The trial court also that “both the militating strongly against stated But also ranch Halls testified at trial that the was ‘a clear, convincing, un- and ” buy.’ very good This was said to consti- be equivocal, there was an inference to spous- tute that both “convincing evidence testimony from the of drawn lack puchase price knew much es was at drawing attorney who was involved less than fair market value.” R. 20. title-retaining May contract of Tony the Faulls sell to whereunder would very Carol Hall said little at trial. With $60,- price, his for the same certainty can and mother be said that she said no 000.00, they Tony sell and thing. say purchase did for which did to She that the property. appeal pertinent separate Appendix 4. "A" are his sole and Attached hereto Tony testimony, portions anything by Tony Hall’s and Carol of record shows that owned Hall, testimony. all Flora Faull’s and community property. Perhaps and Carol was loaning was him his share of the his mother least, Strange, say to the contract recited payment. $2500 down dealing Tony Hall was a married man with that readily Carol in November of 1981. It can Yes. stated earlier believe that, assuming present Mrs. Hall be inferred that times was there was in the during mother, these conversations. Tony, grandmoth- minds of his and taxes, er plan to avoid A Yes. Flora and $40,000.00 Tony, make a to you’re stating agreed And that she it, evidencing attorney $60,000,00 without advised would not ranch,____ them all tax return would have to made; Well,.... be But such made. a return was not ____ yet, such a return would have been some right? That there documentary upon credible excess value and that the excess value proof largely Tony property, could have been be Mr. Hall’s predicated. right? is that Yes, estate, right, that’s as an And unlike the present circumstances my daughter’s, and and it was theirs Whyte, Claunch v. (Indiscernible) together. sixty thousand (1952), attorney prepared where the who protect we sold to from this— them to concerning employment tax, deed testified his thought. we so, attorney may who it rea- Finally, it would have amounted con- sonably assumed drew the deed in case husband, structive fraud for Carol’s who testify. readily did not The inference her, in a fiduciary relationship stands testimony drawn his would not have is that grandparents his enter into trans- Tony’s aided claim that he was the silent thought action which but Carol everyone $40,000.00 $40,000.00 gift Tony real beneficiary included a —while same she into time was led belief cash natural (see appendix), not Flora’s community assets, from the raised sale convincing. even to clear More- close Tony acquiring she and over, 86-year-old grand- it is clear that this question. suggesting actual This is was, so, naturally mother confused suggesting intentional It is fraud. having signed her title- expense reason of in 1980 plan, any, if taxes at the save retaining-contract Tony taxing to sell to his authorities in the later divorce ac- mother, tion seized as a device to enable following year then in Tony obtain more of the far signed outright conveyance an of the same than he entitled to—his entitle- assets Keeping and his wife. ordinarily being the net ment one-half of Tony’s mind case that entire thrust of community worth. was to establish a which excluded his wife a of same is, however, a clear case of construc- purchasing, which so funds fraud, have cases tive been the Tony, nothing for would be all Court, differently this where constituted Carol, observe this statement which years, a over has announced that court stand, and Flora on the witness made let itself used as instrumen- will not be an which demonstrates her evident tality confusion of fraud —whether be intentional or of the two transactions: constructive.6 Myers being 6. The of this case bear a resem- son in fraud of testi- circumstances as creditors. away blance to those stated in the unanimous when all fied that he had transferred Blankenship Myers, of Justice Bakes in v. any money his he didn’t have and "owed assets Mr. P.2d 314 There attorneys Spokane a in bunch bunch Myers, elderly person, having an also suffered money"; litigation he left added that him him, judgment against him- rendered broke, worse than broke. 97 Idaho at by transferring all self insolvent of his assets reversing in trial P.2d at 322. This court court judg- Blankenship, children. his various son, judgment Myers his which had held for creditor, upon ment levied Co., quoted from Mahor v. McLelland Lumber children, Myers filing conveyed his had so (1972) proposi- judgment an to reduce the to an Idaho action "[ajctual by proven must clear fraud be tion that conveyance judgment and set aside the name, your last Q spell do you How pursue has had to To obtain relief Carol Faull? court, Mrs. in turn appeal the district an Appeals. When she was the Court of A F-A-U-L-L. court, Tony relief proper afforded name? Q your husband’s And what’s her Court. brought into this then A Tom Faull. court Carol should On remand to trial Faull? Q you, old How are costs to reimbursement all entitled Eighty-six. A put has attorney’s fees which she husband, wholly spurious your oral how Q claim an And how about is he? which encroached old real equal rightful her status co-owner eighty-eight. He’s A Anything her less husband. than live, Q you Mrs. Faull? And where do in her victimized relief will result still Bend. A Horseshoe of an unintended victim undisclosed- you lived Q long How have plan few dol- paying to-her to avoid Horseshoe Bend area? taxing

lars to the authorities the deaths Tony’s grandparents. Oh, thirty years or more. A about J., HUNTLEY, concurs that this case you Q you moved Do recall could be decided on the additional ba- also up there? prove gift by Hall

sis Mr. failed to it, ’34, I wasn’t think. A ... About clear and evidence. you Q And what kind business years up in over your husband APPENDIX A there? business, stock business. Cattle HALL HALL anyway you Now are related OF COURT TRIAL TRANSCRIPT Hall? Yes, grandson. he’s

BOISE, IDAHO Faull, you signing recall And Mrs. deed____ JULY Honor, may I see Ex- Your MR. ROOD: EXCERPTS 1,1 you is? No. Or do hibit believe that? (FLORA FAULL’S it, copy of Here’s a MR. SETZKE: FULL) IN TESTIMONY got think he’s the one marked. DIRECT EXAMINATION you going I’m show Q Mrs. here as Exhibit A. what we’ve marked BY. MR. ROOD: if that and me you look at tell Will your name? What signing signatures are on recall that? page. A Flora Faull. back seeking payment Spo- to grantor was to an actual avoid and evidence [‘marked Hall, intent’]; badges attorneys; at- Faulls when ‘certain of fraud’ kane in Hall were but taxes, conveyance, adequately avoiding initially not tend and are bent inheritance but may explained, purport- be of actual fraud an inference also did not file a return on $40,000.00 totally 501 P.2d at 726 warranted." 95 Idaho at to ed and undocumented (footnotes omitted). Blankenship Tony. of the intent In victim attorneys Spokane Blankenship at directed was Blankenship, at 324. 97 Idaho at $50,000.00 unpaid judgment. In Hall v. and his My understanding fraud is that where actual avoiding the claimed scheme aimed inferred, ulent be such amounts intention transferring property, payment of real taxes on necessary it be fraud. constructive intended, is not at Carol when she filed and was redirected Hall but that it results —of Williams, good example for a divorce. Stearns v. indistinguishable. Blankenship the The cases are 240 P.2d 833

CROSS EXAMINATION A Yes. BY MR. SETZKE: (Pause) Faull, Q many you Mrs. said that times A Yes. present. Carol was recall, Faull, Q you you Do Mrs. did business, discussing A we When were your any money husband receive yes, around, usually Tony. she was for signing return that deed.? Q Tony probably around, is was A Yes. correct? Q you Do recall how much? Well, A both of We didn’t usual- them. Sixty A thousand. ly discuss business without both of them. Q And what was that for? Q agreed And Carol they that —that A That was to more or less ... be a tax $60,000.00 in going assets were protection for the—for them. essentially to be used invest Well,

Q ranch, I they buy? really going mean what did and that he $60,000.00? bought What with that taking gift, the ... difference as as his Tr. 157-159. separate sole property? Q Faull, your opinion Mrs. was the object, MR. ROOD: I Your Honor. I

place $60,000.00? worth more than don’t believe that’s in I believe issue. don’t agree Hall Mrs. has to to that to make A Yes. parties, the intent of the I would so Q you How much do think it was worth object question know—I opinion? in your give the Court wants a and I’d basis better Oh, thousand, A around a hundred you agreed here. Whether she anything original supposed above that something to, agree testify didn’t she can my grandson. have been a changes but I don’t intent believe that Q you having Do recall discussed that of Mr. Mrs. Your Honor. And him, you____ do so I object question- would to that line of ing. Oh, yes,

A we had it. discussed Well, THE I COURT: don’t believe it Q And you you where were had either, does but it is I Cross Examination. those discussions? if____ think he can ask Right home. Fine, MR. Your ROOD: Honor. Q you Do idea when? ____ THE she if Mrs. COURT: knows A When? agreed that, Hall or if she communicated Q Yes. agreement you some to it. Would restate see, say they A I would —let’s we— question again her? June, December, oh, came in around No- you Yes. believe stated earlier that around____ vember, somewhere present during times Hall OK, recall Carol was if. these conversations. things present when of those A Yes. talked about? you’re stating agreed And that she Well, I think she was we because all things usually didn’t those until discuss ranch,____ of everybody present that was concerned. Well,.... A many anything And times had said we supposed and that was of—over above Q ____right? there was ... ex- That gift. be a cess that the excess would value and value questions, Tony property, be is that MR. ROOD: I no further Mr. Hall’s have right? Your Honor.

(EXCERPTS HALL’S CAROL OF TESTIMONY) Yes, estate, right, as an A that’s it to- daughter's, and was theirs my Q the content you Do remember (Indiscernible) sixty we gether. thousand Tony Hall as your first conversation with tax, protect it from sold to them to this— buying ranch? possibility to the thought. we good probably be a A That it would Q you Now never filed estate OK. there____ ranch, Buy deal. live indicating return, you, did Honor. Objection, Your MR. ROOD: gift? there was a yes or a no answer. question calls for A I don’t believe we did. Q OK. Q approximately the youDo remember many A But times it was discussed time, the of the conversation? first nature fact, recognized

it to be that A the conversation? Just nature way it was to be. that’s someday back That he like to come Q you any changes make in will Did know, grandparents his here. You agreement? anything result older, getting care of the they couldn’t take No, did, always A will stands like it ranch, buy you the ranch? know. Couldwe I just saying, like that —that it was know, you think it? You what do about my my grandson’s my daughter’s — general was the conversation. That—that gift, sixty and that the thousand was Q many on occasions did About how protect them from tax. you this matter? discuss Q you say do I So understand that— Quite A a bit. you’re daugh- talking your whenever about ter, referring you who are to? (Pause)

A Mrs. Porterfield. Q price What was the discussed? Q Mrs. Porterfield? Well, long A time before the up____ exactly. I price came don’t know A Uh-huh. Q price? What was the Q OK. Honor, Sixty I A thousand.

MR. SETZKE: Your have questions. you very further Thank much. Q paid? was that to How THE Any COURT: Redirect? A a home Jose Cash. We sold San No, further, nothing I MR. ROOD: Your Honor. $60,000.00, regards Q how With may step THE COURT: You down then. figure? you often did discuss that you. Thank WITNESS FAULL: Well, probably quite quite A a lot. a— good price. It was a Tr. 167-171. you good ... did know was a How (EXCERPTS OF TONY HALL’S price? TESTIMONY) Well, any just like land is—it seemed EXAMINATION CROSS mean, good expert I’m no price. good price for just land. It seemed like a BY MR. SETZKE: land. Hall, according your Q Mr. calcula- you yo—how Had there, every- out— you subtract out tions after prior the ranch been to times had to____ talking acreage we thing, how much are $76,784.00? has about a value of Oh, quite a bit.

A The entire and fourteen. five hundred ____ discussing it? buying Tr. 139. 1980, prior This is in to the —I don’t want Yeah, go year. A we used to once As I just to be bothersome with this. It’s long California, as we were in we’d fail to see come. the relevance. Well, THE

Q I Tony going How COURT: assume he’s times did discuss to tie it Let ruling in. me reserve you that on that. gift? with was a you If a continuing want objection shown Well, A it was never a —discussed line, along that the Court can do that. gift. mean, $60,- I pay as we were to that, MR. I SETZKE: would like Your for the property. buying 000.00 We Honor. giftAit. was never discussed.

MR. you, ROOD: Thank Your Honor. CROSS EXAMINATION Q whom you plan pur- With ... did chase it? BY MR. ROOD: my mother, Virginia A With Porter- Q long How had for IBM worked field. you before and he were married? Q money? For much how A ... Probably year. $60,000.00. A Q you area, Did grow up in this Q difference, you Do understand the Hall? Hall, Mr. between community property and No, I A didn’t. separate property? questions, MR. ROOD: I have no further Yes, A I do. Honor. Your Q you you Can tell me what think com- THE Any COURT: Redirect? munity property is? No, MR. SETZKE: ... Your Honor. Community A properties is—is down, may step your THE COURT: You you spouse then. own collec- tively together. Separate property or 76-77, 78-79, Tr. like a or yours inheritance that alone, your spouse’s alone. (EXCERPTS OF TONY HALL’S Q capacity you plan pur- what did TESTIMONY) chase along your the ranch with mother, community separate? DIRECT EXAMINATION A Separate. ... Q Tony, back in you your did you going mother —were purchase May approach MR. I ROOD: the wit- place your grandparents? ness, Your Honor? A Yes ... may. THE You COURT: Q Hall, Mr. question well, the ... let Hall, Q I’m going you Mr. to show what — just plan me up. you back Did as we’ve marked Defendant’s No. Exhibit purchase that ranch in 1980? tell you 1. Can me what that is? Yes.

A fact, Yes, A a—in like that’s it looks original copy of a contract mother living And you where were going and entered —were enter into time? partnership. Jose, San A California. set Does that out status of the you plan And did it in purchased had it at that time? conjunction anyone with else? Yes, that, it states “Thomas R. and Yes, I did. sellers, M. Flora referred to as Q Who? dealing A.M. married man his Honor, going STEZKE: separate property marry— MR. Your I’m sole and Porterfield, again dealing object just irrelevant. a married M.V. woman

495 Q Can Eighty ninety to thousand? you you upon any of part- based that separate property, a with her sole and —have values there? Assessor’s assessed buyers.” to nership herein referred Well, figure I could A and what I $60,- that Q Tony, you did arrive at that how somebody sell for at a reasonable —for it price that time? 000.00 buy it. sixty A That thousand was result 101-102, 124-125, 91, 97-99, Tr. 128-129. know, guess you very complex I some ... comprehensive juggling or of what would Justice, BAKES, dissenting: Chief price taxes good be a to avoid inheritance phrase ambiguity inherent The on other side actually, or taxes but is, me, readily ap- “for value received” coin, high as to cause a so might mean one parent. received” “Value large part grand- capital gains my on the dollars, it dollar, might it mean millions parents. purpose of it avoid The was to might might paintings, mean mean rare it inheritance taxes. stones, might precious it mean love and signed your A that contract Was affection, might personal or mean servic- it grandparents? performed, possibilities. es name few Yes, A was. ge- Additionally, “for value received” is Q you your ever Did mother actual- deeds, form phrase, preprinted neric ly complete that transaction? Therefore, books, how can be unam- etc. in so biguous universally it is used No, A didwe not ... mean many different situations to so you your Mr. did wife have possibilities end- things? different are how or conversations about ... what less, phrase what and the doesn’t describe you the status of this was had phrase was. The consideration purchased it? ambiguous, Faull’s evidence was to____ A Is that to— relative re- explain admissible to what the “value Q That contract. of. ceived” consisted ____this con—contract? I don’t days ... has held From its earliest this Court any specific. here, where, remember I know we—we consideration it, specific vague talked about conversa- phrase merely clause recites I were tions other than ... mother and or “for one dollar as “for value received” partnership going go considerations,” parol to—to into a and other valuable purpose purchasing the ranch to avoid the true admissible show inheritance taxes. fear was that ... if conveyance. Our consideration for the Rosen 324, they pass away would Clark, should and—that we v. 85 Idaho berry pay (1963) (“Under have to ... so much ... State taxes certain conditions probably proba- may that it would—we would show parol evidence be introduced to — bly protect consideration, lose it. So this was method to the true want consider basically inheritance ... note other instru promissory ation for a ment.”); Sproat, 69 Irr. v. Reynolds Dist. Tony, you an ... (oral (1949) evi Idaho 206 P.2d actually respect to what that ranch the “other offered to show what dence is, worth; fair market value? were should have valuable considerations” worth, say What I feel it’s admitted); Valley Boise Construc $90,000.00, eighty to somewhere in that— 384, 105 Kroeger, P. tion Co. range (1909) admissible (parol evidence was you Tony, And earlier that indicated by “other con explain was meant what thought your opinion place siderations”). Vanoski v. Thom See also seventy you say did worth ... (Ct.App. son, thousand, I eighty don’t recall? (1988) 1988), petition for review denied merely (where eighty the recital in ninety. A I said around 496 acknowledgment

receipt payment, prevent or does not evidence of the true con- deed.”). susceptible explanation or sideration for contra- evidence). by parol diction bar, cases such as the Profes- sor parol Corbin states that the evidence Our are in accord. A sister states con- only precludes rule parol the admission of explanation applicable cise law is evidence when it varies contradicts the Deist, 542, contained in v. 180 Neils Mont. writing. 3 Corbin on Contracts 573 § 652, (1979): 591 P.2d 655 (1960). case, however, In the instant parol question On the evidence both the parol evidence offered Mrs. Faull did generally law of contracts the law vary writing. or contradict the relating specifically parol to deeds allow deed stated that there was “value re- evidence on issue of consideration ceived,” testimony simply and Mrs. Faull’s is, when the in the recital instrument explained “value what the received” was. here, (“for receipt merely. a value re- testimony vary Her did not contradict ceived”). Bradshaw, the deed. 64 Idaho Stone v. “In a in which the case consideration 152, 159, 844, (1942) (“Testi- 128 P.2d 847 for a written contract is mentioned mony explain thus introduced what was [to merely by way of recital or as a re- language meant used in a document] ceipt, parol evidence rule does not merely language defines or translates the preclude the admission extrinsic evi- of vary the instrument. does not or add dence to show the true considera- writing to the terms of the and does not tion____” 17 Am.Jur.2d Contracts rule.”). fall parol within the Ac- evidence 90; effect, to the same 30 Am.Jur.2d § cordingly, Mrs. Faull’s did not Evidence 1056 and 1057. “The §§ parol violate the evidence rule. tendency of modern times has been to Today’s decision runs counter to also regard the consideration clause in a Court’s unanimous in Russ Ballard light merely receipt deed of a Family & Achievement Institute v. Lava parol explain and to allow evidence to Inc., Resort, 572, Springs Hot 97 Idaho for every pur- consideration almost (1976), subsequent 548 P.2d 72 cases.7 pose except grantor allow the There, “undisputed it was that title to the where no avoid fraud or mis- real property ... was in Frank and Cecelia take 23 is shown.” Am.Jur.2d Deeds Jouglard who transferred to Lava Hot 71. § Resort, 579, Springs 97 Idaho at 548 Inc.” rule, general “As a and in line with the Nevertheless, (and P.2d at 79. one Irick tendency parol modern ... or extrinsic him) parties claiming through alleged admissible to show the ownership that he had an interest in the convey- actual consideration summarily ruling Rather than ance____” 23 Am.Jur.2d Deeds 73. § undisputed title Where a in- deed is instrument by parol could not amended be varied or controversy, volved in a the stated con- evidence, parol this Court ruled that evi- (“one sideration dollar and other consid- offered, dence could be that it must be erations”) explained by can be oral testi- “clear, convincing” proof satisfactory and (1949), mony. v. Johns 122 Warner prevail. order for Irick to We stated: 283, Mont. 201 P.2d 986. presumes The law that the holder of title Wilson, 194, See also State 103 Ariz. 438 is the owner thereof v. [cita- 760, (en banc) (“We (1968) pre- 764 tions The effect of this omitted]. repeatedly sumption held rule that: See, 238, Co., 566, e.g., Lynch Cheney, 98 Idaho Inc. v. v. Creekside Investment 100 Idaho Parkinson, (1977); (1979); P.2d 871, v. Transport, Collins 98 Idaho 602 P.2d 64 M.K. Inc. v. Gro- (1978); Sparks Ed ver, 574 P.2d 913 & Sons v. (1980); 101 Idaho 612 P.2d 1192 State Co., Campbell Joe Constr. Distributors, Inc., ex rel. Kidwell v. Master Robertson, (1978); Courtright Estate Idaho 615 P.2d 116 (1978); Limited, 586 P.2d 265 Aztec in this ownership who claim the factual determinations made “[0]ne legal title case. of which the another, stands of record in or that the person

same is held in trust claiming, so must establish clear,

such claim evidence that is

satisfactory convincing. [Citations

omitted.]” Hence, at P.2d at 79. unanimously Hot this Court Springs Lava SEVERSON, Daniel A. undisputed prop- held that the title to real Plaintiff-Appellant, parol erty could varied amended via “clear, evidence if evidence was satis- factory convincing.” opin- Court’s HERMANN, Randall however, today, ion makes no such allow- Defendant-Respondent. explain why ance. Neither does it 17762. No. apply in Springs

Lava Hot rule should not Instead, majority the instant sim- case. Supreme Court Idaho. summarily ply assumes that “[w]here July language plain unambig- of a deed is parties uous intention of the must be itself,

determined from the deed

evidence is intent.” admissible show However,

Ante 777 P.2d at 256. otherwise,

several of our cases have held

particularly our unanimous in the decision Springs Hot case. The

Lava deed Lava Springs just “unambiguous”

Hot case; fact,

as the deed the instant title

to the real involved in Lava Hot

Springs undisputed. 97 Idaho at P.2d at Hot it Springs, 79. Lava me, controlling,

seems to and under properly

Mrs. Faull’s admit- majority analysis

ted. The makes no case, presumably Hot be- Springs

Lava they

cause conclude that decision is distin- helpful

guishable. would be to know distinguished. what basis it is event, phrase re- “for value ambiguous. This inherently

ceived” held already and other courts have parol evidence is when a admissible ambiguous, merely recites that given “for received.” And final- value apply it fails

ly, the Court errs when giving case Springs

Lava Hot without doing rationale for not

explanation its

so. the dis- judgments affirm the magistrate court and the court

trict

Case Details

Case Name: Hall v. Hall

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 19, 1989

Citation: 777 P.2d 255

Docket Number: 16981

Court Abbreviation: Idaho