Ver Bryck v. Luby

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of defendant after trial before the court without a jury in an action to cancel a deed, plaintiff appeals.

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

Estate of Isenberg,

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

On April 9, 1943, plaintiff deeded a- parcel of real property in the city of Long Beach to defendant reserving in herself a life estate. The present action was instituted for the purpose of setting aside the deed on the ground that plaintiff was not mentally competent to make a deed on April 9, 1943.

There are four questions presented for' our determination which will be stated and answered hereunder seriatim:

First:

Was there substantial evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding that plaintiff on April 9, 1943, was mentally competent to make, execute and deliver a deed of real property?

This question must be ■ answered in the affirmative. The testimony of defendant and attorney Jacobson discloses these facts:

That defendant had known plaintiff since 1932 or 1933 and that following her husband’s death he had consulted with her frequently on matters pertaining to her business. In March, 1943, plaintiff asked defendant to serve as executor of her will. Thereafter an appointment was made with attorney Jacobson and in the middle of March, 1943, plaintiff and defendant went to Mr. Jacobson’s office where a conversation ensued, plaintiff desiring that defendant remain while she discussed the contents of her will with her attorney. She also stated to Mr. Jacobson that she wanted defendant to have her home. This was the first time defendant had heard of plaintiff’s desire to give him her residence. Mr. Jacobson then told plaintiff because of her advanced years he wanted her to talk to someone else before she deeded the home to defendant. Accordingly an appointment was made with Mr. Vaughan of the Title Insurance Company who interviewed plaintiff "out of the presence of defendant and later stated that plaintiff had told him that she wanted to give her home to defendant.

[844]