Rivera v. Ron

California Court of Appeal May 5, 1942 No. Civ. 11977Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the validity of the deed to the intermediary and the subsequent transfer to the defendants, as the evidence established a valid transfer and the plaintiff's own negligence precluded her claim.

Issues

Whether the trial court's findings of fraud and lack of consideration were supported by the evidence.
Whether the plaintiff was estopped from denying the validity of the deed and the subsequent transfer of title.
Whether the presumption of delivery of the deed was overcome by the evidence.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The judgment must be reversed for these reasons—there was a complete and valid transfer of title from respondent to Alvarez, and she is now estopped to deny it.”

“Respondent is estopped from denying due execution and delivery of her deed.”

“The principle of equity that “Where one of two innocent persons must suffer by the act of a third, he, by whose negligence it happened, must be the sufferer” (§ 3543, Civ. Code), demands a judgment for the appellants.”

NOURSE, P. J.

The defendants appeal from an adverse judgment quieting title in plaintiff to real property.

The cause was tried upon an amended and supplemental complaint framed in four counts, the gist of which was that plaintiff’s deed to an intermediary holder of the title was not signed, acknowledged, or delivered by her, was procured by fraud and that her signature thereon was forged. The essential facts are that plaintiff purchased the property in 1934 by payment of $400 in cash and the assumption of a mortgage of $4,000. She moved into the place which she conducted as a rooming house, and soon after acquired one Alvarez whom she expected to marry later on. In 1938 she executed a deed conveying the property to Alvarez. This was acknowledged in the presence of a notary, certified, and duly recorded on March 15,1938. The parties continued to live in the premises, some payments were made upon the principal and interest, and the.tax bills showing Alvarez to he the titled owner were paid for the years 1938 and 1939. During this period the plaintiff permitted Alvarez to place a mortgage on the property as titled owner to secure a loan from a local hank. In 1939 Alvarez employed defendant Jesus Ron to work for him as a carpenter. An indebtedness of $376 was unpaid. In 1940 plaintiff requested him to come to her home and see Alvarez who was ill. In her presence this defendant agreed to take Alvarez to a hospital and pay all hospital and other expenses of his illness. Thereafter he promised to pay the funeral expenses, and Alvarez executed and delivered his deed conveying the property to the defendants. Alvarez died on April 15,1940.

[704]

Defendants paid, in addition to the indebtedness of $376, hospital and funeral expenses of $397, accrued taxes amounting to $74, and assumed the mortgage of approximately $3,400. All these payments were made with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, with her knowledge that they were consideration for the deed, and upon her statement to the defendants that neither she nor Alvarez had been able to pay the mortgage and1 ‘ I wish you can pay it. ’ ’

Upon this evidence the trial court made its findings of fact which we are unable to reconcile with the record. It was found that the plaintiff did sign the deed to Alvarez but did not intend to do so; that she was deceived as to the character of the paper she was signing, but in what respect it does not

Rivera v. Ron

AI Brief

NOURSE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief