Turner v. Deacon

California Court of Appeal Jun 9, 1930 No. Docket No. 230.Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiffs could maintain an action to quiet title because they held legal title, or alternatively, because the action was proper to determine which party held the superior equity. The court further held that the defendant's mortgage was subordinate to the plaintiffs' interest because the defendant took the mortgage with notice of a prior final judgment establishing the plaintiffs' predecessor's ownership.

Issues

Whether an action to quiet title can be maintained by the owner of an equitable estate against the holder of a mortgage.
Whether a mortgage holder is bound by a prior final judgment regarding the property's title when the mortgage was acquired with notice of that judgment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The holder of a mortgage has only an equitable interest in the property involved”

“Appellant took her mortgage with notice of all of the proceedings in that action and the judgment therein, and in so far as her interest under the mortgage is concerned, she is bound thereby.”

[331]

BARNARD, J.

A metion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the opening brief was not filed in time, was submitted with the submission of this case upon its merits. At the time the notice of this motion was served and filed, the opening brief had been filed in this court. The motion is therefore denied. (Rule V.)

The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant to quiet their title to an undivided one-half interest in certain real property in San Diego County, the complaint being in the ordinary form. The answer denies that the plaintiffs are the owners of such an undivided one-half interest, and in a separate answer it is alleged that the defendant has a mortgage which is a valid lien on the entire property, and prior to any title or interest of the plaintiffs. The record shows that the property, a one-half interest in which is here involved, was conveyed by grant deed from Jessie B. Rollinson to Daniel A. Deacon and Clara B. Deacon, his wife, by grant deed dated March 31, 1920, and recorded May 3, 1920. There also appears a contract, acknowledged on April 12, 1920, between Daniel A. Deacon and one A. T. Roark, which recites that the parties had agreed to purchase as tenants in common, the real property described in the deed just mentioned; that the title to the whole of said property should be taken in the name of Daniel A. Deacon and held by him until Roark should pay and satisfy a mortgage then existing on said property; and that a grant deed conveying an undivided one-half interest in said property should be executed by the said Daniel A. Deacon, and placed in escrow with a bank, with instructions to deliver the same to Roark when said mortgage was paid and satisfied. It was also agreed that the said Deacon should not in any way encumber said property while the title remained in him as trustee, without the written consent of the other party thereto.

The record also shows that on January 14, 1924, the said Daniel A. Deacon and Clara B. Deacon, his wife, filed an action in the Superior Court of the County of San Diego against the said A. T. Roark and the Southern Trust and Commerce Bank, alleging that the said A. T. Roark had misrepresented the facts in connection with said deal, and in particular had represented that the property was being sold

[332]

Turner v. Deacon

AI Brief

BARNARD, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief