Folsom v. Burns

California Court of Appeal Apr 25, 1928 No. Docket No. 5797.Published

Before: Houser

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff was the rightful owner of the real property and that the defendant's judgment lien was invalid because the judgment debtor never held any interest in the property.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony to which no objection was made at trial.
Whether the trial court erred in determining the plaintiff's status as a bona fide purchaser.
Whether the trial court erred in quieting title in the plaintiff against a judgment lien asserted against a third party.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In such circumstances, in accordance with the long-established rule, it must be held that appellant may not for the first time raise the point on appeal from the judgment.”

“Inasmuch as the fact was found by the trial court that Virginia B. Burns never owned any interest in the property described in the pleadings, the question of whether plaintiff was a purchaser without notice becomes immaterial”

[295]

HOUSER, J.

The action upon which the appeal herein is predicated was brought for the purpose of quieting title in the plaintiff to certain real property as against the claims of each of the several defendants therein named. With the exception of defendant Newton, none of the defendants appeared or in any manner contested the claim of plaintiff to ownership of the property in question. His claim depended upon an asserted lien created by virtue of a certain judgment. Since the filing of the appeal herein, appellant Newton has deceased and, by order of court, C. W. Chamberlain, as executor of the last will of said Newton, has been substituted in his place as appellant in this proceeding.

Based upon the evidence adduced on the trial of the action, the trial court made findings which, in substance, included the facts that all the allegations contained in the complaint were true, and that none of the allegations contained in the separate answer of defendant Newton was true; that at the time judgment was rendered, and for a long time prior thereto, plaintiff was the owner and in the possession of the real property in question; that on the twenty-first day of February, 1921, Virginia B. Burns was duly adjudicated a bankrupt in the district court of the United States for the southern district of California, and that Carl O. Retsloff was, and at all times since the commencement of the action has been, the duly appointed, qualified and acting trustee for the estate of said bankrupt; that the claims of Virginia B. Burns and Carl 0. Retsloff as said trustee in bankruptcy, and A. E. Newton were without any right whatsoever and that neither of said defendants had any estate, right, title, or interest whatever in the property described in the complaint or any part thereof; that in said bankruptcy proceedings the said Virginia B. Burns disclaimed the ownership of any real property, and both she and her mother, Mrs. M. Agnes Matthews, denied in particular that Virginia B. Burns ever owned any interest in the property in question; that on March 7, 1921, defendant Newton recovered a judgment against defendant Virginia B. Burns, and that said judgment had never been satisfied, but that it did not constitute a valid or subsisting lien against the property described in the complaint; that on

[296]

Folsom v. Burns

AI Brief

HOUSER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief