Litten v. Warren

California Court of Appeal Feb 5, 1936 No. Civ. 5446Published

Before: Pullen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the deed's granting clause, which conveyed a remainder in fee to David Charles Hopkins and Mary Litten, prevailed over subsequent language attempting to create contingent remainders in others. The court further held that the trial judge was not disqualified based on the mere fact that he had recorded an agreement as an attorney twenty-two years prior.

Issues

Whether the deed created a vested remainder in the named grantees or contingent remainders in subsequent parties.
Whether the trial judge was disqualified due to prior professional involvement with the parties to the deed.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the definite and positive provision of the deed must prevail.”

“The conclusion that the title vested in David Charles Hopkins and Mary Litten is further supported by the accepted rule that favors the vesting of future interests as against the creating of contingent remainders”

“no words of conveyance or grant are found to create an estate in Elmore Litten.”

PULLEN, P. J.

This was an action to quiet title to certain real property in which the court found in favor of defendants.

Ebenezer Hopkins conveyed to Sallie Hopkins, his wife, in the following language a life estate in the property in ques

[636]

tion, with remainder over “unto the party of the second part (Sallie Hopkins) a life estate with remainder in fee to David Charles Hopkins and Mary Litten, nee Hopkins, all of those certain parcels of land . . .

“It is hereby further witnessed and declared to be the intention of the parties hereto that if the said. Mary Litten, nee Hopkins, should die before the termination of the life estate hereby created, that in such event, the above estate created remainder should go to her son Elmore Litten and that in case of the death of both said Mary Litten, nee Hopkins, and her son Elmore Litten before the termination of said life estate, then the whole estate hereby created in remainder shall

to said David Charles Hopkins. . . .

‘

‘ To have and to hold all and singular the said premises together with the appurtenances unto the said party of the second part, during her natural life and subject to the estates in remainder above created. ’ ’

Thereafter David Charles Hopkins conveyed to Mary Litten Young, formerly Mary Litten, his interest and remainder. Some time later Mary Litten Young conveyed all of her right, title and interest in the property to her mother Sallie Warren, the life tenant. Thereafter Mary Fletcher, formerly Mary Litten Young, died, leaving three children, Elmore Litten, Charles Young and Maxine Fletcher. Shortly after the death of her daughter, Mary Fletcher, Sallie Warren, formerly Sallie Hopkins, died. Her surviving husband, George B. Warren, was appointed executor, and during the course of settling the estate obtained an order to mortgage the real property in question to C. L. Preisker, one of the defendants. Subsequently Elmore Litten, as plaintiff, commenced this action to quiet title to the property, basing his right and title thereto on the deed quoted above. After a trial the court rendered judgment' in favor of defendants, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

Litten v. Warren

AI Brief

PULLEN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief