GREEN v. BROWN (1950)

From a judgment in favor of defendants after trial before the court without a jury in an action for the declaration of rights under a conveyance of real property, plaintiff appeals.

Facts: December 15, 1941, plaintiff and his wife, Etta C. P. Green, the mother of defendant Zephrene C. Brown, conveyed to defendants a parcel of real property by grant deed, ‘Reserving and excepting, however, a Life Estate in the Grantors above named in all of the above described property, and the right to use, occupy and enjoy the same and to receive the rents, issues and profits therefrom during the term of their natural lives.’

At such time defendants were living with the grantors on the property. Following the conveyance all four parties continued to reside in the house located on the parcel of real estate conveyed by the above mentioned deed. Prior to the execution of the deed defendants paid to plaintiff and his wife $25 per month. After the execution of the deed, in lieu of rent, defendants paid $20 per month on an encumbrance against the property in the sum of $886.42, and they also paid one half of the utility bills and taxes.

On April 10, 1943, plaintiff's wife, Etta C. P. Green, died. At such time plaintiff vacated the bedroom formerly occupied by himself and his wife and moved to another bedroom in the house. Plaintiff continued to take his meals with defendants and defendants continued to pay one half of the utility bills and one half of the property taxes except that defendants paid all of the taxes for the year 1949.

Between April and September of 1945, defendants expended approximately $2,100 in papering, painting and making a few changes in the house, plaintiff consenting to such changes and alterations. They also expended additional sums for new furniture. Plaintiff said on a number of occasions that he would never bring another Mrs. Green to reside in the home. The expenditures spent on such improvements were made in reliance upon plaintiff's representations. However on September 7, 1945, plaintiff informed defendants that on April 24, 1945, he had married one Helen Hudson and demanded additional accommodations on the premises for his new spouse and himself.

The trial court entered a decree adjudging: ‘An undivided one-half interest in defendants, James O. Brown and Zephrene C. Brown, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants, that was in their actual and peaceable possession; an undivided one-half interest in plaintiff, Thomas E. Green as to a life estate, subject to his limited personal joint possession or occupancy plaintiff had theretofore enjoyed with the defendants before his remarriage; and in defendants, James O. Brown and Zephrene C. Brown, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants, as to the remainder. All subject to the effect of a declaration of homestead by Jomes O. Brown, as husband of Zephrene C. Brown, recorded January 14, 1942, in Book 19098, page 26 of Official Records.

‘All of said property being subject to:

‘1. Any lien for inheritance tax due the State of California by reason of the death on April 10, 1943, of said Etta C. P. Green, former owner of a life estate with Thomas E. Green;

‘2. General and special county and city taxes for the fiscal year 1949–1950, a lien, not yet payable;

‘3. The requirement that the death of Etta C. P. Green wherein a life estate was reserved by her and her husband, Thomas E. Green, in the deed dated December 15, 1941, executed by said Etta C. P. Green and Thomas E. Green in favor of James O. Brown and Zephrene C. Brown, husband and wife, as joint tenants, recorded December 17, 1941, in Book 18982, page 184 of Official Records, be established of record.’

Questions: First: Did the trial court err in not decreeing that the deed reserved in the surviving grantor a life estate during the remainder of his life?

This question must be answered in the negative. There is no ambiguity in the deed in question, the life estate created therein vested in the grantors, Thomas E. Green and Etta C. P. Green, on the 15th day of December, 1941, as tenants in common. The language of the deed creating the estate reads, ‘reserving and excepting however, a life estate in the grantors above named’ who are ‘Thomas E. Green and Etta C. P. Green, husband and wife.’

Therefore on December 15, 1941, said grantors each had by operation of law a vested undivided one-half interest in said life estate (See Guyer v. London, 187 Okl. 326, 102 P.2d 875, 878; Heiden v. Howes, 77 Ohio App. 525, 67 N.E.2d 641, 642), and on April 10, 1943, the date of the death of Etta C. P. Green, her undivided one-half interest in the life estate terminated and vested in the remaindermen, James O. Brown and Zephrene C. Brown. Hence the trial court's ruling was correct in holding that plaintiff did not have a life estate in the property for the duration of his life.

Second: Did the trial court err in decreeing that plaintiff had only on individed one-half interest as a life estate subject to his limited personal joint possession or occupancy with defendants which he had enjoyed prior to his marriage to Helen Hudson?

This question must likewise be answered in the negative. This is an equitable action and subject to these rules:

1. The burden is on the one coming into a court of equity for relief to prove not only his legal rights but his clean hands. (Richman v. Bank of Perris, 102 Cal.App. 71, 86, 282 P. 801; Allstead v. Laumeister, 16 Cal.App. 59, 64, 116 P. 296.)

2. Any unconscientious conduct upon plaintiff's part which is connected with the controversy will repel him from the forum of a court of equity. (DeGarmo v. Goldman, 19 Cal.2d 755, 764, 123 P.2d 1.)

Applying the forgoing rules to the facts in the present case the evidence discloses unconscientious conduct upon the part of plaintiff. Knowing that he had remarried he allowed defendants to expend sums of money for the improvement of the home in which he lived upon their understanding that he would use the premises in a limited way as found by the trial court, and that he would not bring into the home a second wife. Clearly his endeavor to go contrary to his promises and statements after defendants had altered their position to their detriment constitutes unconscionable conduct upon the part of plaintiff, and the trial court setting as a court of equity properly withheld relief from plaintiff.

Third: Did the trial court err in impressing plaintiff's interest in the property with certain liens in favor of defendants?

This question must also be answered in the negative. It is the duty of a court of equity when all the parties to the controversy are before it to adjust the rights of all and leave nothing open for further litigation. (Newport v. Hatton, 195 Cal. 132, 153, 231 P. 987.)

In settling the entire controversy between the parties the trial court merely complied with the foregoing rule.

Fourth: Did the trial court err in receiving in evidence (a) a declaration of homestead dated January 14, 1942, (b) testimony that plaintiff had not instituted proceedings to establish the fact of the death of his wife, Etta C. P. Green, and (c) testimony that defendant Zephrene C. Brown would not have made the repairs on the home provided she had known that plaintiff had remarried in April of 1945?

Plaintiff contends that this evidence was irrelevant and immaterial. We may concede it to be such; however, plaintiff does not indicate wherein or whereby such evidence was prejudicial to him, therefore we must disregard it pursuant to the mandate of Article 6, section 4 1/212 of the Constitution of the State of California.

Affirmed.

McCOMB, Justice.

MOORE, P.J., and WILSON, J., concur.