Auener v. Suiter

California Court of Appeal Feb 24, 1920 No. Civ. No. 2084.Published

Before: Ellison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the statutory presumption that property conveyed to a married woman is her separate property constitutes evidence that may outweigh conflicting testimony, and the trial court's finding based on such a presumption will not be disturbed on appeal.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption that property conveyed to a married woman is her separate property.
Whether the trial court's finding that the property was the separate property of the deceased spouse is supported by the evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Whenever any property is conveyed to a married woman by an instrument in writing, the presumption is that the title is thereby vested in her as her separate property.”

“The presumption declared in section 164, although disputable, is itself evidence, and it is for the trial court to say whether the evidence offered to overthrow the presumption has sufficient weight to effect that purpose.”

“Treating the presumption as evidence, we have a ease wherein the trial court has made a finding upon conflicting evidence. It has found that the presumption has not been overcome.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

ELLISON, P. J.,

pro tem.

The plaintiff brought this action to quiet title to certain lots in the town of Monrovia, Los Angeles. The complaint is in the usual form, merely alleging the plaintiff’s ownership and that defendant, without right, claims an interest in the property. The answer consists of a denial of the allegations of the complaint and of a claim of ownership in the defendant. The findings of the court were to the effect that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals.

The evidence shows that the plaintiff was the husband and the defendant the mother of Osa W. Auener; Osa W. Auener died June 16, 1916; for some time prior to her death Osa W. Auener held the legal title to the lots in question, they having been deeded to her by Mrs. Marsh and her husband by a grant, bargain, and sale deed; just prior to her death Osa W. Auener executed a grant, bargain, and sale deed of the lots to her mother, the defendant herein, and it is under this deed that she claims.

It is the plaintiff and appellant’s position that, while the record title to the lots was in his wife, they were community property, having been purchased with money, the community property of himself and wife. The finding in favor of the defendant is an implied finding that the lots, at the time of the transfer to the defendant, were the separate property of the deceased spouse.

The only point raised on the appeal is' that the holding of the court that the lots were the separate property of the deceased spouse is not sustained by the evidence.

Section 164 of the Civil Code provides: “Whenever any property is conveyed to a married woman by an instrument in writing, the presumption is that the title is thereby vested in her as her separate property.”

“A presumption is a deduction which the law expressly directs to be made from particular facts,” and unless controverted the finding must be according to the presumption (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1959, 1961).

“By reason of the.deeds the wife became presumptively the owner of the lands therein described as her separate

[303]

Auener v. Suiter

AI Brief

Synopsis

ELLISON, P. J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief