Regoli v. Fancher

California Court of Appeal Mar 22, 1937 No. Civ. 10457Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment quieting title in the plaintiff, holding that the defendants' title claims based on invalid bankruptcy proceedings and a quitclaim deed executed under duress were ineffective.

Issues

Whether the defendants acquired valid title through bankruptcy proceedings previously held void by the Supreme Court.
Whether the defendants were bona fide purchasers entitled to rely on a subsequent quitclaim deed.
Whether the plaintiff could defend against the quitclaim deed by asserting it was executed under menace and duress.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The title conveyed in the bankruptcy proceedings was, as we have noted above, wholly invalid.”

“Fancher and wife were not bona fide purchasers and entitled to rely on the quitclaim deed.”

“The plaintiff is defending himself against the effect of an instrument which his grantors executed under alleged menace and duress. He has the right to do so.”

[674]

STURTEVANT, J.

This is an action to quiet title. The plaintiff framed his complaint in two counts. The defendants appeared and answered both counts and at the same time filed a cross-complaint. The plaintiff answered the cross-complaint and the trial was had on all of the issues made by said pleadings. Having heard all of the evidence the trial court made findings in favor of the plaintiff and from the judgment entered thereon the defendants have appealed.

Both parties claim title under mesne conveyances from N. Forsman and wife, who were formerly the owners of the property. We will first discuss the case as made by the plaintiff. N. Forsman and wife conveyed to L. Guaragua and Rosie Guaragua, Ms wife. On September 21, 1925, the grantees executed a trust deed to N. Lucchesi and P. Lucchesi, his wife, as trustees for A. Lucchesi, the beneficiary: Afterwards T. T. Califro was substituted as trustee. N. Lucchesi and his wife, as trustees, conveyed to Califro, as trustee. Upon demand being made upon him T. T. Califro commenced proceedings to sell the interest of the grantors L. Guaragua and Rosie Guaragua, his wife. The proceedings' so progressed that on May 7, 1931, T. T. Califro, as trustee sold the property to A. Regoli, this plaintiff. While the defendants find fault with the procedure followed by the trustee in making the sale, they do not make any attack showing or tending to show that the sale was invalid for any reason whatsoever except as will hereinafter be noted.

We pass now to a consideration of the claims of the defendants. The record shows that James Guaragua, the son of L. Guaragua and Rosie Guaragua, his wife, was adjudged a bankrupt. In the bankruptcy proceedings of James Guaragua such steps were taken that on May 18, 1926, a commissioner’s deed was executed purporting to convey the title of L. Guaragua and Rosie Guaragua, his wife, of N. Lucchesi and P. Lucchesi, his wife, and of A. Lucchesi, to J. Costello, the trustee in bankruptcy. On a former hearing of this action the validity of the conveyance just mentioned was the subject of the contest. The trial court rendered a decision upholding the validity of the conveyance so made by the commissioner in bankruptcy. From that judgment an appeal was taken and the judgment of the trial court was reversed.

(Regoli

Regoli v. Fancher

AI Brief

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief