Coleman v. Satterfield

[82]

McCOMB, J.

This is an action to require specific performance of an agreement to convey an interest in real property and for an accounting of rents received from said property. The action was tried before the court without a jury. Defendant appeals from the judgment in favor of plaintiff and also attempts to appeal from the order denying her motion for a new trial.

The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff (respondent) and pursuant to the rules set forth in

Estate of Isenberg,

63 Cal.App.2d 214, 216 [146 P.2d 424], discloses the following facts:

On or about the first day of April, 1943, plaintiff and defendant verbally agreed to purchase a duplex known as 1489-1491 South Beverly Drive, Los Angeles, California. It was agreed that each should pay 50 per cent of the purchase price of the real

property;

that plaintiff and defendant should each have a full one-half interest in and to the entire property ; that defendant should occupy one of the apartments and the other should be rented; that plaintiff should receive the rental therefrom after deducting one half of the necessary expenses of maintenance, taxes and related matters; that title should be taken in the name of defendant but that she would deliver to plaintiff a grant deed representing an undivided one-half interest on her demand. Title was taken in the name of defendant and plaintiff contributed one half of the purchase price of the property. However when plaintiff demanded at a subsequent date that defendant give her a grant deed to an undivided one-half interest in and to the property defendant refused to comply with plaintiff’s request.

Judgment was entered decreeing that plaintiff was entitled to a one-half interest in the property, ordering defendant to execute a grant deed conveying such interest, and giving plaintiff a money judgment for $1,476, representing the balance due from defendant to plaintiff for rents collected, etc.

Question:

First: Was

there substantial evidence to sustain the finding that plaintiff and defendant each paid and contributed one half of the purchase price of the property in question?