Croswell v. Eckels

California Court of Appeal Dec 20, 1950 No. Civ. 17955Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant failed to establish a valid title to the property because he did not prove a rescission of the prior conveyance to Roberts, nor did he establish that his predecessor was a good-faith purchaser for value. Furthermore, the appellant failed to show a clear chain of title from the decedent's estate.

Issues

Whether the prior conveyance to Roberts was rescinded by the grantor.
Whether the appellant's predecessor was a good-faith purchaser for value.
Whether the appellant established a sufficient chain of title to maintain a quiet title action.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The right to recover in such an action depends upon the strength of the plaintiff’s title.”

“Inasmuch as Martha Belle had actual notice of the delivery of the Roberts’ deed prior to delivery of Ezra’s deed to her the latter instrument was ineffectual as a conveyance of the property.”

“Therefore, since appellant did not establish that Martha Belle Cubley was a purchaser for value and in good faith, he cannot prevail.”

MOORE, P. J.

Having failed to establish his right to a quiet title, appellant demands a reversal of the judgment on the grounds that (1) the facts prove that the transaction whereby respondents' predecessor acquired a deed to two city lots was rescinded; (2) the grantor of Ralph and Emma Eckels had constructive notice of the rescission; (3) such respondents had constructive notice of the rescission.

The controversy arose out of the attempt of one Ezra Cubley to convey two city lots to some member of his family after he and his wife Edna had already transferred them to one Darol Roberts. Some five days before Roberts had recorded his deed, Ezra, without being joined by his wife, by deed transferred the same property without consideration to his mother Martha Belle Cubley who had knowledge of the Rob

[273]

erts’ deed. Evidently conceiving that they had all or part ownership of the lots as heirs or legatees of Martha Belle, the latter's husband, W. M. Cnbley, joined Ezra and his wife Edna in executing a deed to appellant on April 7,1949, which was recorded on June 14 of the same year. No consideration was paid by either Martha Belle to Ezra or by appellant to his grantors.

There is no proof that the conveyance to Roberts was rescinded. No notice of Ezra or his wife Edna was in evidence to prove a rescission of the conveyance or a demand for re-conveyance. The recording of the deed to Martha Belle prior to the recordation of the Roberts’ deed is not equivalent to the statutory requirements of a notice of rescission. (See Civ. Code, § 1691.) Such deed did not contain a suggestion that Martha Belle’s grantor had rescinded his transaction with Roberts. Many reasons for the delivery or recordation of a second deed might be named without the remotest suggestion of the cancellation of a prior conveyance. Moreover, appellant’s attempt at rescission fails inasmuch as no offer was made to restore the consideration received from Roberts. Such an offer is indispensable to a legal rescission (Civ. Code, §1691;

McGue

Rommel,

148 Cal. 539, 547 [83 P. 1000]) unless nothing of value was received.

Croswell v. Eckels

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief