Faria v. Bettencourt

California Court of Appeal Jul 18, 1929 No. Docket No. 6809.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a plaintiff in continuous, exclusive possession of real property under an equitable title is entitled to a decree compelling the conveyance of the legal title, and such right is not barred by statutes of limitation or laches while the owner remains in possession.

Issues

Whether a plaintiff in possession of land under an equitable title is entitled to a conveyance of the legal title despite the passage of time.
Whether the defense of laches may be raised for the first time on appeal.
Whether statutes of limitation bar a claim for legal title by a plaintiff who has maintained continuous possession of the property.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The owner of the equitable title is supposed, for the purposes of a court of equity, to have acquired and to hold the title, and the court will compel the conveyance of the legal title only because the equitable title is not recognized”

“As long as the equitable title exists, it must exist with all its incidents.”

“Laches is a defense which must be pleaded and proved unless it appears on the face of the complaint”

NOURSE, J.

Plaintiff sued to quiet title to real property situated in Alameda County and to require the defendant Bettencourt to execute a deed of conveyance in accordance with an oral agreement so to do. The trial court found for the plaintiff and entered judgment as prayed in the amended complaint. The defendants appeal on typewritten transcripts.

In the month of May, 1911, the plaintiff became engaged to Adeline Bettencourt, the daughter of the defendant Manuel. In consideration for the promise to marry the daughter, to build a home upon the lands described, and to live upon and improve the same, the defendant Manuel promised to convey said lands to the plaintiff. A tract of land, .266 acres in extent, and of about $250 in value, was measured off and marked by this defendant by a substantial fence and the plaintiff erected on the premises a home at a cost of $3,000 and expended $125 in other improvements. Thereafter the plaintiff and Adeline were married (January 31, 1912) and continued in such relation until November 30, 1927, when a final decree of divorce was entered. The other defendants, Harold and Philip Faria, are the issue of this marriage. The plaintiff and his wife moved into the home constructed by him and they continued to occupy the premises for about four years. The place was then rented by the plaintiff, who received the rents and paid all taxes and charges thereon.

[51]

The trial court found that since the month of May, 1911, and until the trial of the action, the plaintiff had been in the continuous, visible, notorious and exclusive possession of the premises, that the rental value of the lahid, exclusive of the improvements made by the plaintiff, did not exceed $10 a year, and that the improvements made by the plaintiff far exceeded the value of the bare land. The evidence is without substantial conflict, except that, on the part of the defendants, testimony was received to show that the promise of the defendant Manuel was to convey the land to the plaintiff’s family rather than to the plaintiff alone, and the defendant Adeline testified that she received the rents from the premises after the family had moved, and that she paid the taxes. Evidence was also tendered of a deed executed by the defendant Manuel in 1915 conveying a life estate to Adeline with remainder to the heirs of the plaintiff and Adeline.

Faria v. Bettencourt

AI Brief

NOURSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief