Jones v. Kelley

California Court of Appeal Nov 5, 1953 No. Civ. 19623; Civ. 19624Published

Before: Drapeau

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a joint tenancy deed is not conclusive as to property ownership and that an oral agreement between spouses to hold property for the survivor can establish a resulting trust, rendering a unilateral attempt to sever the tenancy ineffective.

Issues

Whether the form of a joint tenancy deed is conclusive as to the ownership status of real property between spouses.
Whether an oral agreement between spouses regarding the survivorship of property can create a resulting trust that overrides the terms of a joint tenancy deed.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The form of the instrument under which a husband and wife hold title is not conclusive as to the status of the property.”

“When there is an oral or written agreement as to the ownership of the property, or where such an understanding may be inferred from the conduct and declarations of the spouses the terms of the deed are not controlling.”

“Examination of the record establishes that the testimony for Mrs. Jones amply sustains the burden upon her of proving the resulting trust by clear and convincing evidence.”

[132]

DRAPEAU, J.

Mr. and Mrs. Jones were married October 22, 1938. He was then 62 years of age; she was 60. It was a second marriage for each of them. He had one child by his prior iparriage; she had two by hers. They lived together until Mr. Jones died of cancer August 6, 1950.

During the marriage Mrs. Jones sold some of her separate property and purchased a house in Long Beach. This house fitted her purposes: first, for a home for her and her husband, and, secondly, for an office for her business as a realty broker.

When the escrow instructions for this purchase were first drawn Mrs. Jones directed that the deed be made to her as her separate property.

Before the escrow closed she changed her instructions and directed that the property be conveyed to her and her husband as joint tenants. This was done.

Mrs. Jones testified on the trial in this case that she had the title so vested because she wanted to be sure her husband would have a home if she should die first, and because of her agreement with him that the property should go to the survivor of them, without regard to any of their children. In other words, husband and wife agreed that neither of them would break the unity that exists in joint tenancy and that the property was to go to the one who survived the other.

This is clear from Mrs. Jones’ testimony: “As near as I can remember, I said, ‘Well, Morris, I am paying for the property, but I want it in joint tenancy, ’ so if anything happened to me, it would be his property, and if anything happened to him, it would be my property. We had that definite understanding.”

Mr. Jones did not keep his agreement. About a week before he died his daughter, Edith Jones Kelley, stayed with him for part of a day, at the request of Mrs. Jones. While Mrs. Jones was away on business, Mr. Jones had his daughter make an appointment with an attorney. Then Mr. Jones and his daughter went to the attorney’s office.

There Mr. Jones asked the attorney to prepare a will for him. In discussing the terms of his proposed will it developed that the only property Mr. Jones owned was his joint tenancy interest in the house referred to. So the attorney told him he didn’t need to make a will; all he had to do was to convey his interest in the property by deed to a third person.

Jones v. Kelley

AI Brief

DRAPEAU, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief