Hitch v. Hitch

California Court of Appeal Jan 6, 1938 No. Civ. 2131Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the grantor's recording and delivery of a deed reserving a life estate constituted a valid present conveyance of title, and that subsequent acts or statements by the grantor were insufficient to overcome the presumption of intent to transfer title.

Issues

Whether the grantor intended to divest himself of title at the time of recording and delivery of the deed.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the grantor intended to retain full title until his death.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The deed contains within itself rather complete proof of a specific intention to make a present conveyance subject to a life estate which was reserved.”

“If he did not intend the deed to take effect until his death there was no possible reason for reserving a life estate.”

“In our opinion there is no evidence which is sufficiently substantial to sustain a finding that this grantor had no intention of passing title when this deed was recorded.”

BARNARD, P. J.

This is an action to quiet the title to and obtain possession of a house and lot in San Bernardino. The plaintiff, a granddaughter of one John W. Hitch, resides in Omaha with her grandmother, who was formerly the wife of John W. Hitch. The defendant is the widow of John W. Hitch, having married him on September 30, 1925. A few months after their marriage the defendant left Hitch and came to California. Several years later Hitch came to California and he and the defendant lived • together,

except

for some months when he was in a hospital, until his death which occurred on March 28, 1935. He purchased the' real property in question with his separate funds on April 10, 1929. It was thereafter used as a family home and the widow is still in possession. In his will, dated June 18, 1929, John W. Hitch made no mention of this property but left $200 “to Anna C. Hitch, (wife), (in name only)” and gave the remainder of his estate equally to a son, a daughter, and this plaintiff.

On August 7, 1930, John W. Hitch executed and acknowledged a deed conveying this property to the plaintiff, which deed recites that the “premises, and all of it, is conveyed subject to an estate for life reserved by the grantor, John W. Hitch, unto himself, as his individual property for life”. On July 31, 1933, John W. Hitch recorded this deed and instructed the recorder to forward the same, when recorded, to the plaintiff at Omaha. This was done and the plaintiff in due time received the deed from the recorder. A month later John W. Hitch wrote to his son in Omaha asking to have the recorded deed sent to him. This was done and after Hitch’s death this deed was found in a locked chest in his room, sealed in an envelope addressed to the plaintiff at Omaha and with 39 cents in uncanceled postage stamps attached. Aside from any possible interest in this real property John W. Hitch left personal property which, in probate proceedings, was appraised at about $2,200 and set apart to the widow.

In this action which followed the court found that this deed had been delivered with.the intent to convey title to the plaintiff and ordered judgment in her favor. After a motion for a new trial these findings were set aside and the case reopened

[293]

Hitch v. Hitch

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief