I read something that a plane crashed on Tell Tena's land at at some point.
Here's a later court case between Frances and Tell (divorce issues)...apparently issues with payment, and then divorce
295 P.2d 1115 (Wash. 1956)
48 Wn.2d 628
Frances WITZEL, Appellant,
v.
Tell TENA, Respondent.
No. 33513.
Supreme Court of Washington.
April 12, 1956
Department 2.
Rehearing Denied May 16, 1956. [48 Wn.2d 629]
Binns, Cunningham & Fletcher, Tacoma, for appellant.
Everal Carson, Vancouver, for respondent.
OTT, Justice.
The plaintiff, Frances Witzel, and the defendant, Tell Tena, were married May 8, 1920. October 31, 1928, they entered into a written contract to purchase land, stock, and equipment in Clark county. The purchase price was $40,000 and was to be paid at the rate of $500 a month, which included interest at six per cent per annum on the deferred balance. By 1932, the contract balance had been reduced to approximately $30,000. April 26, 1932, the seller deeded the property to the purchasers and took mortgages on the land, stock, and equipment as security. From 1932 until 1937, the Tenas made no payment on the principal, and paid only a part of the interest on the mortgage debt. In 1935, the mortgagee voluntarily waived all interest due and unpaid, and reduced the balance of the principal to $22,500.
In 1937, Mrs. Tena Left the farm and commenced divorce proceedings against Tell Tena in Clark county. In her complaint, she claimed no interest in the community property, and prayed that it be awarded to Tell Tena. This divorce proceeding was abandoned. [48 Wn.2d 630]
July 29, 1939, she obtained a divorce from Tell Tena in Nevada. Prior to obtaining the Nevada divorce, she wrote to Mr. Tena, asking him to enter an appearance in the Nevada court and sign a waiver. She included a copy of a letter her attorney had written to her. Her letter and the attorney's letter indicated that she claimed none of the property owned by the parties, and was interested only in the divorce.
After receipt of the letters, Mr. Tena signed the waiver and the appearance, as requested. In her complaint filed in the Nevada court, Mrs. Tena alleged that there was no community property, and, in granting the divorce, the court found that all of the allegations in the complaint were true. July 30, 1939, Mrs. Tena married Mr. Witzel and moved to California, where she has since resided.
When the parties were divorced in 1939, the real and personal property of the community was encumbered in the sum of approximately $25,000 and, at that time, had a value of approximately $21,000. In the ensuing sixteen years, Tell Tena worked to improve the farm and, at the time of the trial, the land was valued at approximately $53,000 and was clear of the debt.
Mrs. Witzel commenced this action May 5, 1953, alleging that she When the parties were divorced in 1939, the real and personal property of the community was encumbered in the sum of approximately twenty-five thousand dollars and, at that time, had a value of approximately twenty-one thousand dollars. In the ensuing sixteen years, Tell Tena worked to improve the farm, and, at the time of the trial, the land was valued at approximately fifty-three thousand dollars and was clear of the debt.
Mrs. Witzel commenced this action May 5, 1953, alleging that she owned a one-half interest in the community real property acquired in 1928; that the community realty had not been disposed of by the divorce decree; that, at all times since the divorce, the parties have been tenants in common; that Tell Tena should be required to render an accounting, and that the land should be partitioned in kind, or sold and the proceeds of the sale divided between the parties.
In his answer, the defendant denied the allegations in the complaint and affirmatively pleaded, among other defenses, that the plaintiff was estopped to claim any interest in the real property in question, and prayed that the title to the property be quieted in him.
The cause was tried to the court. Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment awarding the plaintiff one dollar and quieting title in the defendant were entered. The plaintiff has appealed.
Case actually had a lot of interesting issues
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Loginfinal judgements. She didn't even get to keep her one dollar!
[10] We have held that, if the judgment of the trial court can be sustained upon any theory presented to it, the judgment will not be reversed. Palin v. General Constr. Co., 47 Wn. (2d) 246, 287 P. (2d) 325 (1955); Kirkpatrick v. Department of Labor & Industries, ante p. 51, 290 P. (2d)979 (1955).
The evidence established equitable estoppel, and the appellant is precluded from asserting any title to the property in question. The court properly quieted title in the respondent.
Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, that portion of the judgment which quiets title in the respondent is affirmed. Therefore, the trial court's award of one dollar to the appellant is not allowable.
Appellant's principal assignments of error have been disposed of in the foregoing opinion, and we find no merit in the remaining assignments.
The cause is remanded with instructions to enter judgment in accordance with the views expressed herein. The respondent will recover costs on appeal.
HAMLEY, C. J., MALLERY, WEAVER, and ROSELLINI, JJ., concur.
May 16, 1956. Petition for rehearing denied.
Poll