Welch v. Security-First National Bank of LA

McCOMB, J.

This action was brought by plaintiff as the executrix of the estate of Ferdinand Albert Heim, deceased, to quiet title to a parcel of land standing in decedent’s name as against the lien of a deed of trust executed by Mr. Heim in his lifetime.

From a judgment in favor of defendants after trial before the court without a jury, plaintiff appeals.

The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to defendants (respondents), the essential facts are:

During his lifetime, Ferdinand Albert Heim was the owner of Lot 8, Block 3 of Angeleno Heights in the city of Los Angeles. On April 29, 1933, Mr. Heim executed and delivered a promissory note in favor of the Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles in the sum of $2,540. On the same date, as security for the aforesaid note, he executed a deed of trust covering the note above described. The Los Angeles Trust & Safe Deposit Company was named as trustee and the Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles as beneficiary. On May 8, 1933, Ferdinand Heim, an uncle of the deceased, purchased the note and the trust deed above mentioned from the Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles, and said note and trust deed were duly assigned to him on December 24, 1934. Mr. Ferdinand Heim assigned the note and deed of trust to defendant Pedroarena on September 8, 1941. Ferdinand Albert Heim died on September 16, 1941. Thereafter the note, trust deed and assignments were sent by defendant Heim to defendant Pedroarena.

Plaintiff relies for reversal of the judgment upon three propositions, which will be stated and answered hereunder seriatim.

First:

There was not any substantial evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding that defendant Heim (a) purchased the note and deed of trust from the Security-First National Bank, (b) assigned the note and trust deed to defendant Pedro-arena.

[634]

(a) This proposition is untenable. Defendant Heim, according to his deposition testified in substance as follows:

That his deceased nephew had executed the note and deed of trust which are involved in the present litigation; that he knew the signature of decedent and that it appeared on both the note and deed of trust; that he had purchased the note from defendant bank and subsequently, on December 24,1934', assigned it to defendant Pedroarena; that he held it in trust for her until September 16, 1941, when he forwarded it to her; and that at no time while he held the note was any sum paid upon it.