Willis v. Holback

California Court of Appeal May 31, 1939 No. Civ. 11023Published

Before: Spence

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly rejected the witness's testimony and that the evidence, including the presumption of validity of recorded deeds, was sufficient to support the judgment quieting title in the defendant.

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the testimony of a witness whose evidence was the sole basis for the plaintiff's claim.
Whether the trial court's findings were sufficient to support a judgment quieting title without detailed findings on every conveyance in the chain of title.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court rejected her testimony and was justified in so doing.”

“The most that can be said is that the evidence of Katherine Girard was in conflict with said presumptions but said presumptions remained as evidence and were sufficient to support the findings”

“It was not necessary in this action to quiet title for the trial court to make detailed findings as to the validity of each conveyance in defendant’s chain of title.”

SPENCE, J.

Plaintiff brought this action to quiet title to certain real property situated in Santa Clara County. The trial court entered its judgment decreeing that plaintiff had no right, title or interest in said property and quieting title in defendant and cross-complainant Angie Avery, hereinafter called the defendant. Plaintiff appeals from said judgment.

The real property was originally owned by Leah Holback, who deeded said property to Katherine Girard. Defendant derived her title through conveyances from Katherine Girard to John Edward O’Brien and from said John Edward O’Brien to defendant. Plaintiff is a judgment creditor of Leah Holback, and subsequent to the time that Leah Holback conveyed to Katherine Girard, plaintiff twice sought to satisfy his judgment by levying execution on the right, title and interest of said Leah Holback in said property, claiming that said conveyance from Leah Holback to Katherine Girard was fraudulent.

After the first levy of execution in 1931, Katherine Girard brought an action to quiet title against this plaintiff and also against Leah Holback. This plaintiff there claimed that said deed from Leah Holback to Katherine Girard had not been delivered, that there had been no consideration therefor and that it was made to defraud this plaintiff as a creditor. The trial court in that action found against all of this plaintiff’s claims. Judgment was entered therein in favor of Katherine Girard and said judgment was affirmed on appeal.

(Girard

Holback,

217 Cal. 785 [21 Pac. (2d) 420].)

A second levy of execution was made in March, 1935, and a sale was had thereunder. This plaintiff was the purchaser at said sale. This action was filed in 1936 and plaintiff claimed title under the sheriff’s deed. The deed from John Edward O’Brien to defendant was recorded in 1935 and after the said execution sale had taken place.

Katherine Girard filed a disclaimer in this action and appeared as a witness for plaintiff. She related a rather amazing story which the trial court refused to believe. As stated in a memorandum opinion, the trial court said: “Without

[147]

Willis v. Holback

AI Brief

SPENCE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief