Del Carlo v. County of Sonoma

California Court of Appeal Sep 20, 1966 No. Civ. 23128Published

Before: Taylor

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the County's recorded lien for hospital services constituted a valid conveyance that took priority over the plaintiff's prior unrecorded deed because the County was a bona fide encumbrancer without notice. Additionally, the court held that the plaintiff's written promise to pay the debt was enforceable and not the product of legal duress.

Issues

Whether a recorded hospital lien has priority over a prior unrecorded deed when the lienholder had no notice of the deed.
Whether a written promise to pay the debt of another, made after consultation with counsel, is enforceable or voidable for duress.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The County’s lien clearly comes within the definition of a conveyance under the terms of section 1215.”

“Thus, the County was a bona fide encumbrancer or mortgagee without notice under the terms of sections 1107 and 1214 and the lien has priority over plaintiff’s unrecorded deed.”

“We conclude that the lien of the County having been recorded prior to plaintiff’s deed takes precedence and that plaintiff, therefore, acquired his title subject to the lien.”

TAYLOR, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the County of Sonoma (hereafter County) denying relief in his action to quiet title and decreeing that the County had a valid lien for hospital services rendered to his former wife, Amelia. Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in concluding that: 1) the County's recorded lien was valid and had priority over his prior unrecorded deed; and 2) his written promise to pay the County was enforceable as it was not made under duress.

The appeal is on an agreed statement that sets forth the following facts: After plaintiff's former wife filed a divorce action against him, he voluntarily purchased the real property in question in Santa Rosa and deeded it to her for herself and their three sons. When the final decree was entered on January 5,1949, there was no community property to be distributed.

On May 4, 1956, Amelia reeonveyed the Santa Rosa property to plaintiff by a grant deed that was not recorded until July 26, 1957. Amelia became ill and was treated at the county hospital for various periods of time between January 7, 1956, and February 25, 1958. On May 23, 1957, pursuant to former sections 203.5

and 2601 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,

Amelia executed a lien on the Santa

[38]

Rosa property as security for the payment of her account in favor of the County. This lien was recorded on May 24, 1957. Amelia died in June 1958, leaving an unpaid balance of $625.45 on her hospital account. At the time of the execution and recording of Amelia’s lien to the County for the hospital services rendered and to be rendered to her, the County had no knowledge of the unrecorded deed to plaintiff.

Between October 1,1962, and April 29,1963, plaintiff and his attorney corresponded with the County about Amelia’s hospital account and the lien. Plaintiff, after conferring with his attorney, met with the County Hospital Committee and orally agreed to pay Amelia’s account. On April 8, 1964, plaintiff sent the County a payment of $50 and wrote a letter indicating that he would pay the balance in 18 months, or sooner.

Del Carlo v. County of Sonoma

AI Brief

TAYLOR, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief