Phoenix v. Gibson

California Court of Appeal Jan 24, 1921 No. Civ. No. 3683.Published

Before: Richards

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence sufficiently supported the trial court's findings regarding the existence of an agreement to improve property and sell it to reimburse the improver, and that a court of equity has the power to enforce such an agreement.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that an agreement existed between the parties.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding regarding the nature and effect of the agreement.
Whether a court of equity has the power to order the sale of property to satisfy an agreement for reimbursement of improvement costs.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“From our own examination of these signatures we are of the opinion that the conclusion of the trial court as to the genuineness of the letters of Lopez is sufficiently supported by the evidence in the case”

“We are of the opinion that taking all these things into consideration the trial court was justified in making its findings to the effect that such an agreement as the defendant pleaded in her cross-complaint was made.”

“all that the trial court undertook to do in this equitable proceeding was to carry this portion of the agreement between the parties into effect.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

RICHARDS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant upon her cross-complaint in an action

[149]

to quiet title to certain real estate. The action was one originally begun by one Hilario or “Joe” Lopez, who died during its pendency, and the present plaintiff, as the administratrix of his estate, was substituted in his place. Lopez was during his lifetime the owner of the property in question, but it is averred by the defendant in her cross-complaint that an agreement had been entered into between said Lopez and one William Gibson, of whose estate she is administratrix, that said William Gibson would improve and rebuild a dwelling-house upon said premises, and that after the same had been completed the property should be sold, and from the proceeds of such sale said William Gibson should be reimbursed for the moneys expended by him in making said improvements, and that said Gibson had performed his part of said agreement at an expenditure of the sum of twelve hundred dollars, no part of which had been paid. The plaintiff denied these allegations, and upon the issues thus raised the cause went to trial, at the conclusion of which the trial court made its findings in favor of the defendant upon her said cross-complaint, and thereupon entered judgment directing that the property in question be sold, and that from the proceeds of such sale the defendant be paid the sum of twelve hundred - dollars, together with her costs. It is from this judgment that the present appeal has been taken.

[1]

The first point urged by the appellant is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the finding of the trial court as to the existence of the agreement upon which the defendant predicates her right of recovery. The proof of the agreement in question principally consisted in certain letters claimed by the defendant to have been written by said Lopez to William Gibson, the most important of which was a letter couched in the following terms:

“Taft, Cal., Jan. 16, 1917.

“Mr. Gibson:

“In reply to your note in regards to the property, you go ahead and fix things up and pay the taxes and when I come over we will try and sell it and you can get your money out. I haven’t seen or heard from the girls for some time.

Phoenix v. Gibson

AI Brief

Synopsis

RICHARDS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief