Hodler v. Hodler

185 P. 241, 95 Or. 180, 1919 Ore. LEXIS 254

• Court: Oregon Supreme Court
• Decided: November 12, 1919
• Status: Published

Opinions

JOHNS, J.

This has been a bitterly contested suit, and the record is full of crimination and recrimination, but as we read it neither of the Hodlers could qualify to cast the first stone. The defendant admits that he was married in Jones County, Iowa, to Emma Roe on October 1, 1885; that they lived there as husband and wife, and that a daughter was born to them; that in about one year he left his family and came to Beaver-ton, Washington County, in this state, and that he has never since seen that wife and child. He alleges that Emma Roe Hodler obtained a divorce from Mm in Iowa on November 21,1888, and it appears that soon thereafter she married his brother. He also alleges that on January 13, 1896, he instituted a suit for divorce against her in the Circuit,Court of the State of Oregon for Yamhill County, in which findings of fact were made and a decree was rendered in that court on April 14, 1896, divorcing him from his former wife, Emma Hodler.

The plaintiff and the defendant Louis Hodler were married at Vancouver, Washington, in 1898. At that time Hodler claims that she knew and plaintiff denies that she had any knowledge of his former marriage, or that he had a daughter. It is significant that while he was then a resident of Beaverton in Washington County he filed his complaint and obtained his divorce in Yamhill County.

At the time of their marriage, the plaintiff and defendant were without substantial means, and both were hard-working people and made their home in the country. In 1903, through her mother, the plaintiff became the exclusive owner, of the Washington County farm of 187.5 acres, together with some property in Portland, Oregon, and a substantial amount of money known as the “Pat. Forester estate,” and in a short time they both moved to Portland, where they continued to reside. Up to 1913, their domestic relations were fairly pleasant and they were reasonably happy.

Upon the death of his wife, A. B. F. Orr became a boarder in the Hodler household, and invited the husband and wife to take an eastern trip which it was understood would be at his expense. It was upon that trip that their domestic trouble commenced, with Orr as the storm center. On their return, he continued to reside with them and their domestic troubles increased from time to time until they finally culminated in the execution of the agreements and the filing of the divorce suit in Clatsop County by the plaintiff upon the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. The plaintiff vigorously contends that she did not want Orr in the home, and frequently notified him to leave, but that her husband objected to his leaving and insisted that he should stay. The defendant as vigorously contends that he did not want Orr around the house and several times notified him to leave, and that his wife insisted that he should remain. In either event it is apparent that Orr was largely responsible for the domestic trouble between the Hodlers. By mutual consent, the plaintiff and the defendant Louis Hodler together went to the office of Attorney MacMahon in the City of Portland, where the agreement known as “Exhibit ‘A’ ” was prepared and executed on January 8, 1915. Following the execution of that agreement, the plaintiff went to Astoria in Clatsop County and filed her complaint in the divorce suit. The complaint and summons were first served upon Louis Hodler by the sheriff of Multnomah County, following which Attorney MacMahon drafted a letter to the sheriff of Clatsop County, which he delivered to Louis Hodler, who .was then in Portland, and who personally went to Astoria and delivered the MacMahon letter to the sheriff of Clatsop County, by whom Louis Hodler was again duly served in the office of that sheriff with another copy of the complaint and summons in the divorce suit.

Hodler did not appear in the divorce suit and a default was entered against him. It is apparent that his purpose in going to Astoria and the making of the second service was to facilitate the trial of the case and the obtaining of the decree of divorce.

After the default was taken, both parties returned to Portland where tlie testimony was taken in MacMahon’s office before the reporter of the Circuit Court of Clatsop County as referee, with the plaintiff and Clara Wenger, a niece of the defendant, as the only witnesses, and each of them gave strong testimony tending to show that'the defendant had committed numerous acts of cruel and inhuman treatment towards plaintiff and that she had been a dutiful and faithful wife. Based thereon, the Circuit Court of Clatsop County, rendered a decree in favor of the plaintiff. After its rendition and by mutual consent, the plaintiff and defendant with Attorney MacMahon went to the bank where the papers were placed in escrow pending the suit, and the deeds from the. defendant to the plaintiff were duly executed and delivered, and plaintiff then paid the defendant $1,000 in cash and assigned the Tierney note and mortgage of $3,000, and executed the $16,000 note with a mortgage on the Washington County land to secure its payment, all of which were delivered to the defendant, and the whole transaction was apparently closed until about the time this suit was commenced. At its maturity, the plaintiff was notified by the attorney for Mrs. Stone to pay the annual interest of $1,120 on the $16,000 note. After some delay, the plaintiff paid that interest to Mrs. Stone under the alleged belief that she was the actual owner and holder of that note and mortgage. But-it is admitted in the pleadings and appears from the evidence that the defendant Louis Hodler was then and is now the true owner and that Mrs. Stone held the assignment thereof in trust for him.

While we agree with the trial court that there is much perjured testimony in the record, there is no dispute as to the execution of any of the instruments or why they were executed, or as to the obtaining of the divorce, the grounds and the reason for it or the manner in which it was obtained. Hodler claims that the contract of J anuary 8, 1915, as modified by the parties on J anuary 30th of that year, was a separation agreement only, and as such was valid. The plaintiff now contends that it was procured 'by duress, was conditioned on the obtaining of the divorce, was intended to promote and facilitate the divorce and is void as against public policy. That is the vital question in this case. In 9 R. C. L., page 252, it is said:

‘ ‘ Marriage is a relation in which the public is deeply interested and is subject to proper regulation and control by the state or sovereignty in which it is assumed or exists. The public policy relating to marriage is to foster and protect it, to make it a permanent and public institution, to encourage the parties to live together, and to prevent separation.”

1. Under the earlier decisions even separation agreements between husband and wife were held to be void as against public policy, but under the modern decisions, when fair and reasonable such agreements are now sustained. As we analyze it, the whole transaction between the plaintiff and Louis Hodler was an agreement between them by which the plaintiff should procure a divorce.

The defendant Hodler alleges in his answer that ‘ ‘ at the time of the execution of said agreement immediate divorce proceedings were contemplated by these parties,.” and the divorce suit was filed on January 10, 1915. To facilitate the trial Louis Hodler went from Portland to the sheriff’s office at Astoria for the express purpose of being served with a copy of the summons and complaint in Clatsop County, and did not enter any appearance in the suit. His own niece, who for a number of years had lived with the litigants in their family home, was an important witness for the plaintiff and testified as to specific acts of cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff by the defendant Hodler, on the strength of which the decree was granted. This defendant further alleges that he “entered no appearance therein and believed that the agreements hereinbefore referred to in reference to the division of the property and the property rights were valid, binding and conclusive,” and that if he had “had any reason to believe or did believe or suspicion that said agreements, ‘Exhibits “A” and “B,” were not final and conclusive and were not in fact a final settlement of property and property rights between plaintiff and the defendant, he would have appeared and filed an answer in said divorce suit and filed a cross-complaint alleging grounds hereinbefore mentioned, and others, for the purpose of securing a divorce.” The statement as to “grounds hereinbefore mentioned” has reference to the alleged adulterous acts and meretricious conduct between the plaintiff and Orr, and the alleged cruel and inhuman treatment of the defendant by the plaintiff. Hodler now contends and it appears from his own evidence in this suit that he was a kind, faithful and loving husband, and that he never abused or mistreated the plaintiff. He declares that she never had any grounds for a divorce on account of cruel and inhuman treatment or otherwise, and his niece testifies in the pending case that she committed-perjury in all her testimony in the divorce suit as to the grounds upon which the decree was obtained. In other words, assuming that the evidence and contentions of the defendant in the pending case are true, the plaintiff never had any ground for divorce, but Hodler had abundant cause for a divorce from her, both on account of cruel and inhuman treatment and because of her meretricious relations with Orr. • Yet with knowledge of such facts and in consideration of the $20,000 which he expected to secure, he permitted the plaintiff to obtain a divorce from him on grounds which he knew to be false.

The rule is well stated in 9 R. C. L., page 254, that:

“A husband and wife cannot enter into a lawful agreement for a divorce, and the courts unhesitatingly declare illegal as contrary to public policy any contract intended to facilitate or promote the procurement of a divorce. Hence a contract whereby a wife who has resolved to leave her husband agrees for a stated consideration to relinquish all claims on him as wife provided a divorce is granted to him on or before a fixed date is void and no bar of her right to a year’s support and dower after his death. Nor can an agreement to withdraw opposition to or not to contest divorce proceedings form a valid consideration for a contract to pay money. * *- Similarly a contract between a husband and wife is invalid where its direct tendency is to interest the husband in procuring a divorce or in foregoing resistance to an effort by his wife directed to that end.”

Qreenhood on Public Policy, page 490, lays down the rule thus:

“ ‘It is quite settled,’ said the court, in Case I, ‘that contracts between husband and wife, so framed as to have effect only on condition that a divorce should be granted, are contrary to public policy, and will not be enforced by the courts. Their tendency is to interest the parties to be benefited in procuring or permitting a divorce; and, though chancery will recognize and enforce some liabilities between husband and wife growing out of implied trusts, and even some growing out of express contracts, yet the courts will never lend themselves to the enforcement o'f a contract intended to promote the dissolution of marriage. * # Such an agreement is regarded in law as a fraud upon the court and upon the administration of justice, and no action will lie upon it. ’ ”

And on page 491 it is said:

“ ‘The object of the agreement,’ said the court, in Case III, ‘was to bring about a dissolution of the marriage contract, and to put an end to the various duties and relations resulting from it. Any contract, having any such purpose, object, and tendency, cannot be in law sustained, but must be regarded as being against sound public policy, and consequently illegal and void.’ ”

In Phillips v. Thorp, 10 Or. 494, the syllabus holds that:

“The authorities are uniform in holding that any agreement between the parties having for its object the dissolution of the marriage contract, or facilitating that result, such as an agreement by the defendant in a pending action for divorce, to withdraw his, or her opposition, and make no defense, is void, as contra bonos m,ores.

“Such agreements are a fraud upon the law which favors marriage, and will not give its sanction nor lend its aid to uphold or enforce the terms of any contract, nor countenance any contrivance which is designed to promote its dissolution. ’ ’

The opinion there, by Mr. Justice Lord, cites and quotes from the early case of Adams v. Adams, 25 Minn. 72, 79, in which it is said:

“The authorities are uniform in holding that any contract between the parties, having for its object the dissolution of the marriage contract, or facilitating that result, such as an agreement by the defendant in a pending action for divorce, to withdraw his or her opposition, and to make no defense, is void, as contra bonos mores, and that any note executed in consideration and pursuance of any such agreement, is without valid consideration, and void.”

The Adams case was a suit to recover upon:

“One of several negotiable promissory notes which were given by the defendant to the plaintiff, at the same time, and upon one and the same entire consideration. They all originated in the same transaction, having been given in pursuance of an alleged illegal agreement, entered into between the parties while they were husband and wife, for the purpose of procuring a divorce between themselves, in an action then commenced by the plaintiff against said defendant. The defense interposed and relied on in this action is this alleged illegality in the consideration of the note, it being claimed that said agreement was void as against public policy.”

The plaintiff there contended that the defendant was precluded from impeaching the validity of the note sued upon by showing that it was given in pursuance of a void agreement, because he was a party standing in pari delicto. It was there conceded that—

‘ ‘ The note in question was given in pursuance of the written agreement, and to carry out its provisions. It was, in fact, a part of the agreement, resting wholly upon its validity for support, and the plaintiff now asks the aid of the court in enforcing it. The point is not well taken.”

The opinion further says:

“Testing the agreement in question by these principles, it was clearly illegal and void as against public policy, and the decision of the court in regard to its validity was right. At the time the agreement was entered into, the parties .were still husband and wife. It contemplated the fact that divorce proceedings had already been or were about to be instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant, for the purpose of procuring a dissolution of their marriage relations. By its terms, defendant agreed to pay her one thousand dollars down, to execute his four promissory notes, for $1,000 each, with security, and to place the same, together with other property, in the hands of a third party, to be delivered to her upon the happening of the event therein provided, as hereinafter stated. * * The agreement expressly provides that said notes and other property so placed in escrow are ‘to be delivered to her when she shall have obtained a decree of divorce ’ from her said husband, the defendant, and not before.”

The case of Muckenburg v. Holler, 29 Ind. 140 (92 Am. Dec. 345), discussing a similar contract, said:

“Its direct tendency was to interest the present plaintiff in procuring a divorce, or in foregoing resistance to an effort by his wife directed to that end. _ The marriage relation is not thus to be tampered with, and the courts, by contract of the parties, converted into mere registers of their agreements for separation from the bonds of matrimony. The law favors marriage, and cannot therefore sanction contracts intended to promote its dissolution by lending itself to their enforcement.”

Palmer v. Palmer, 26 Utah, 31 (72 Pac. 3, 99 Am. St. Rep. 820, 61 L. R. A. 641), is an exhaustive case, in which the court there said:

“Moreover, where, as appears in this instance, the parties agree that the one shall bring a suit to dissolve the marriage, and that the other will make no defense, or a mere nominal defense, which is indicated by the context, the agreement becomes collusive and fraudulent, and is without validity. A contract of this character may be regarded as a fraud upon the court, and it comes within the reason of the maxim, ‘ ex turpi causa non oritur actio. ’ * * The welfare of humanity, the intelligence and progress of the human race, high moral and social ethics, alike demand this. Any other method or device by which the contracting parties attempt to sever or to facilitate the severing of the bonds of matrimony, in the eye of the law, contravenes public policy, is regarded as contra bonos mores, and is void and ineffectual. Therefore a contract which is designed to facilitate the procurement of a divorce, to put an end to the marriage status, and absolve parties from all their marital obligations, imposed upon them by the law of matrimony, cannot be enforced. ’ ’

Numerous authorities are cited in the opinion, to the effect that—

“Courts will not enforce any contract which is the price of consent by one party to the marriage relation to a procurement of a divorce by the other. ’ ’

In 9 Cyc., page 519, we find the following:

“If the object of a contract is to divorce man and wife the agreement is against public policy and void. * * To induce a wife to sue for a divorce by a promise on the part of the husband to remunerate her for it, or for a husband and wife to agree that one of them shall bring a suit for a divorce and the other shall not defend, is against the law which recognizes and upholds the sanctity of marriage and is void. ’ ’

Under such authorities and the facts disclosed by the record, the divorce decree rendered by the Circuit Court of Clatsop County was a fraud upon that court and the contracts between the plaintiff and the defendant were null and void as against public policy.

The trial court found as conclusion of law No. 5:

‘ ‘ That the plaintiff and defendant Hodler are in pari delicto, but not in the same degree, Hodler being the more guilty party to the aforesaid contractual transactions and the execution of said note and mortgage.”

The testimony was taken in open court and the case was bitterly contested. The trial judge saw the witnesses and in many instances took an active part in their examination. The record is voluminous, covering over thirteen hundred typewritten pages, including numerous exhibits. The question as to the actual blame which should be placed upon each party is largely one of fact, and under all the circumstances we think that the opinion of the trial court is entitled to some weight. While as to all other matters exclusive of the written contracts, “Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B,’ ” it may be true that the Hodlers were both in pari delicto, it is not true as to “Exhibit ‘B’ ” in particular. In that contract Hodler was the moving party; he showed a mercenary disposition and undertook to drive a hard bargain, seeking to be relieved of the support and maintenance of the minor children and to thrust that burden upon the mother of his own offspring. Except to purchase a suit of clothes for one of them, it appears from his own evidence that Hodler has not contributed a dollar to the support of his children since the plaintiff procured her divorce. Again, the only interest which Hodler ever had in the real property involved was an inchoate right of curtesy. The plaintiff was the exclusive owner in fee simple of the realty by a conveyance from her mother, and the title was not acquired by their joint efforts. The only claim thereto which Hodler could assert was for the value of his labor and services in the management and improvement thereof while he and the plaintiff were husband and wife. We quote from the opinion of the trial court:

“All she [the plaintiff] has in pursuance of the contract and in accordance with its terms is the quitclaim deed from Hodler to his interest in her lands, which deed conveyed nothing, as he had no interest in her lands.”

In the execution of that contract Hodler was more than equally guilty with the plaintiff. “Exhibit ‘B’ ” was executed after they were divorced and that fact strongly supports the contention of the plaintiff that even then she was acting under fear and duress.

Taken as a whole, the complaint states a cause of suit for the cancellation of the $16,000 note and mortgage and a return of the money paid. The first and third grounds are largely founded upon duress, but the allegations are broad enough to sustain a decree that the $16,000 note and mortgage should be canceled upon the ground that they were void and without consideration.

2. Assuming that the allegations of duress are not sustained by the evidence and that the parties were in pari delicto, the defendant Hodler admits the execution of the respective contracts and that the divorce was obtained pursuant thereto. In addition he pleads affirmative defense tending to show that the agreements were supported by a good and valid consideration ; that they were executed in good faith; that he relied thereon; that the plaintiff acquiesced therein for about two years and paid the annual interest on the $16,000 note, and that she ought now to be estopped to claim or assert that the note and mortgage were null and void. He alleges that he advanced moneys to and performed labor and services for the plaintiff which would constitute a valid consideration for the contracts ; that he had a valid defense to the divorce suit, but that in reliance upon the agreements he did not appear or make any defense. As affirmative relief he prays for a decree that the $16,000 note and mortgage be declared valid and binding and for “such other and further relief as may appear to be equitable in the premises.” Since he has made such admissions, pleaded such defenses, asked for such affirmative relief and tried the case on such issues, we are of the opinion that the defendant cannot question the jurisdiction of the court to render a decree of cancellation upon the ground that the parties are in pari delicto.

This is not a snit in which the plaintiff seeks to recover upon or enforce a contract which is void as against public policy. It is brought to cancel a note and mortgage of record alleged to have been procured through fear and duress and to be void and without consideration. Here Hodler as a defense claims and alleges that the note and mortgage are legal and supported by a good consideration, and prays for a decree that they be declared valid and binding. Both parties submit themselves and the subject matter of the suit to the jurisdiction of the court and pray for equitable relief. As said in Leadbetter v. Hawley, 59 Or. 422, 424 (117 Pac. 289, 290):

“The plaintiff is in court, not in favor of his agreement, but in spite of it; not to enforce it, but to be relieved from it. * * A contract becomes executed when all is done that the terms require to be performed. Until that situation is attained, the contract is executory.”

3. The real essence of the contract was that in consideration of her payment of $20,000 to Hodler the plaintiff should have a divorce from him. In legal effect $4,000 of that amount was paid at the time of the execution of the contract, and the remaining $16,000 was evidenced by a promissory note dated February 1, 1915, to be paid on or before three years after date, with interest. As to the money which was actually paid, it was an executed contract. As to the money which was to be paid as evidenced by the promissory note, it was an executory contract and would not become fully executed until the whole amount of the $16,000 note was actually paid. With regard to all moneys which were paid over by the plaintiff under the terms of the contract, she is without a remedy. To that extent this is an executed contract.

4. Defendants’ counsel contend that if the $16,000 note and mortgage are void as against public policy, the suit should be dismissed, citing and relying upon the case of Horseman v. Horseman, 43 Or. 83 (72 Pac. 698), where the rule is laid down that—

_ Equity “will not enforce a specific performance relative to the conveyance of the homestead, neither will it require a surrender or cancellation of the unpaid note and mortgages, or interfere to relieve against the condition in which the parties have voluntarily placed themselves.”

In that case the plaintiffs were the moving parties and sought the specific performance of a contract which the court found was against public policy, and the defendants made a general denial, pleading no affirmative defenses nor asking for a decree that the contract be declared valid and binding.

In the pending suit it must be conceded that the validity of the note and mortgage is the real issue. It is the plaintiff who seeks to have them canceled, and Hodler- who wants them declared valid. In a suit to foreclose the mortgage, the defendants could plead and successfully defend upon ground that it is void and without consideration. This is a suit in equity and the subject matter and all parties in interest are in court.

After a careful consideration of the numerous questions ably presented by distinguished counsel, we hold that the decree of the lower court should be affirmed without costs to either party. Affirmed.

Bennett, J., dissents.