MacHado v. MacHado

California Court of Appeal Jan 11, 1961 No. 18849Published

Before: Coakley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of a contract to devise property because they substantially performed their obligations, and their actions in filing a partition suit and listing the property for sale did not constitute a rescission or abandonment of the agreement as a matter of law.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs' performance of a contract to care for the decedent and operate a ranch was sufficient to entitle them to specific performance.
Whether the plaintiffs' actions in filing a partition suit and listing the property for sale constituted a rescission or abandonment of the contract as a matter of law.
Whether the trial court erred in its findings regarding fraud and the credibility of witnesses.

Disposition. Affirmed with modification

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The fact which stands out most prominently is that plaintiffs operated the farm without salary and maintained A.J. until his death, a period of over seven years.”

“Unless, therefore, the acts of plaintiffs in offering to sell or in filing the partition constituted a repudiation or abandonment as a matter of law, the judgment must be affirmed.”

“It is the established rule that ultimate facts, only, should be found. It is usually unnecessary and improper to incorporate evidentiary facts in the findings.”

188 Cal.App.2d 141 (1961) 10 Cal. Rptr. 347 ANTHONY R. MACHADO et al., Respondents,

ALFRED MACHADO, Individually and as Executor, etc., Appellant.

Docket No. 18849. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One.

January 11, 1961. [143] Machado, Feeley & Machado for Appellant.

Wool & Richardson and Donald B. Richardson, Jr., for Respondents.

[144] COAKLEY, J. pro tem.[*]

Plaintiffs-respondents are son and daughter-in-law of Anthony J. Machado, deceased. The defendant-appellant is also a son of the decedent, and the executor and sole devisee of his father's estate under a will dated January 25, 1957.

For purposes of brevity the decedent will be referred to herein as A.J.; the plaintiff, Anthony R. Machado, as Tony; the plaintiff, Viola Machado, as Viola; and the defendant as Alfred.

Nature of the Case

The complaint alleges: (1) that on August 19, 1949, plaintiffs and A.J. executed a written agreement by the terms of which A.J. agreed to devise his one-half interest in a 40-acre ranch to plaintiffs if they would move onto the ranch, operate and maintain it, and care for and maintain A.J. during his lifetime; that on the same day A.J. made a will devising his interest in the ranch to plaintiffs, and thereupon delivered a copy of the will to plaintiffs; (2) that plaintiffs performed their obligations under the agreement; and (3) that A.J. breached the agreement by later executing a will leaving his interest in the property to defendant, Alfred. Plaintiffs seek specific performance of the agreement of August 19, 1949, and a declaration that Alfred holds the property in trust for plaintiffs' benefit.

Defendant's position as set out in his answer, and supplemented by the pretrial order, is that (a) the agreement was prepared by an attorney selected by plaintiffs, that A.J. did not understand what he was signing, and his signature was therefore procured by fraud; (b) the consideration flowing from plaintiffs to A.J. was inadequate in relation to the value of A.J.'s interest to be devised to plaintiffs; (c) plaintiffs failed to perform their obligation; (d) mutual rescission; and (e) repudiation and abandonment by plaintiffs.

MacHado v. MacHado

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief