Barling v. Keller

California Court of Appeal Aug 25, 1938 No. Civ. 10865Published

Before: Spence

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a testamentary recital of a prior conveyance of land, which was never effectively delivered, does not constitute a valid devise of that property.

Issues

Whether a recital in a will regarding a deed that was never delivered constitutes a valid devise of the real property described therein.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the probate court concluded that the language found in the will constituted a mere recital of what had been done and that there was no valid devise of said real property.”

“the decisions on the question of the effect of a recital in a will of a conveyance of land which was not made, or which proved to be ineffectual, seem uniformly to hold that such recital will not operate as a devise”

[265]

SPENCE, J.

This is an appeal by Lottie Keller, formerly Lottie Bradley, from a decree of the probate court construing the will of the decedent.

Said decedent left an holographic will which contained numerous provisions. Among said provisions was the following :

“To my sister Mrs. Lottie Bradley sometimes called Mrs. J. R Bradley I have deeded my property at the South West corner of Hopkins St and Dimond Ave in the City of Oakland Cal. Now leased to the Standard Oil Co The deed must be placed on record at the Hall of Records in the City of Oakland Alameda Co Cal.”

The deed referred to was dated December 3, 1926, and was duly acknowledged before a notary public on that date. It was stipulated, however, that it was never delivered. The will was dated May 4, 1929, at the commencement thereof and was dated May 30, 1929, at the end thereof. The will and deed, together with other deeds, were found among the effects of the decedent.

The sole question presented on this appeal is whether under the foregoing facts the said real property was validly devised to appellant. The probate court concluded that the language found in the will constituted a mere recital of what had been done and that there was no valid devise of said real property. It therefore entered its decree accordingly.

We find no error in the trial court’s ruling. The facts presented are analogous to those in

Estate of Young,

123 Cal. 337 [55 Pac. 1011], and the decision in that case appears to be controlling here. The court there said on pages 342 and 343, “There was no delivery of these deeds during the testatrix’s lifetime. What validity they possess, then, comes from the will, and, therefore, if by act of the testatrix title to these lands passed, we must find in the will both an intent to devise them and operative words to effect 'the intent.” The court there held that directions in the will for 'delivery of the deeds were insufficient to show an intent to devise. On page 344 it said, “Here, to repeat, there is no doubt as to the language and its meaning. The testatrix merely mistook the legal effect which would follow a compliance with her directions. While no form of expression is required to create a devise, and while considering that wills are fre

Barling v. Keller

AI Brief

SPENCE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief