Elbert, Ltd. v. Hall

California Court of Appeal Dec 19, 1950 No. Civ. 17583Published

Before: Wood (Parker)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of title through tax deeds, and the defendant failed to present competent evidence or demonstrate error in the trial court's procedural rulings. Consequently, the judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motions for continuance, consolidation, and amendment of the answer.
Whether the tax deeds introduced by the plaintiff were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of title.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial and motion to vacate the judgment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence was sufficient to support the judgment for plaintiff.”

“The court did not err in denying a motion for a new trial.”

WOOD (Parker), J.

In this action to quiet title to real property, defendant Mrs. Ehrhardt appeals from the judgment in favor of plaintiff.

In the complaint it was alleged that plaintiff is the owner and entitled to possession of Lot 18, Tract 1971, in Los Angeles County, California; that defendant Stella Ehrhardt claims some right, title or interest in said property; that said defendant has no right, title or interest therein. In her answer, the defendant denied the allegations of the complaint hereinabove set forth; and she alleged as a separate defense that she is the sole owner of said property and is entitled to the possession thereof. The answer was filed October 23, 1946. This appeal is presented upon a settled statement.

When the case was called for trial on July 1, 1949, defendant, appearing in propria persona, made a motion for a continuance upon the ground that she was not prepared for trial. The motion was denied and the trial commenced on that date. The plaintiff offered in evidence a certified photostatic copy of a deed executed by the tax collector as grantor, dated September 18, 1933, wherein it was stated that said property was conveyed to the state for the nonpayment of taxes for the year 1927. The plaintiff also offered in evidence a deed executed by the state as grantor, dated March 21, 1946, wherein it was stated that said property was sold and conveyed to the state for nonpayment of taxes, and that the state, acting through the tax collector, sold said property >at public auction to plaintiff for $355, and that said property was granted to the plaintiff. Defendant objected to said offer upon the ground “that proper foundation had not been laid showing jurisdic

[211]

tional prerequisites leading up to the sales, both to and from the State, had been complied with; stating that this defendant as last assesses had not been given notice of either sale and that she had no knowledge of said sales.” The objection was overruled, the two deeds were received in evidence, and the plaintiff rested.

Defendant did not testify, but she offered in evidence her answer in an action in the superior court (No. 276252), filed in 1929, entitled

Los Angeles Bond and Securities Company

Elbert, Ltd. v. Hall

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief