Carlson v. Carlson

California Court of Appeal Jun 9, 1932 No. Docket No. 4541.Published

Before: Preston

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An unregistered deed to property held under the Torrens Title Act is valid as between the grantor and grantee, and the grantor's heirs take the property subject to the same equities and conditions that existed at the time of the grantor's death.

Issues

Whether an unregistered deed to property registered under the Torrens Title Act is effective to transfer title between the parties.
Whether the heirs of a decedent take property free of an unregistered deed executed by the decedent during his lifetime.
Whether the statute of limitations under the Torrens Act bars an action by a grantee claiming title under an unregistered deed.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Heirs occupy the place of their ancestor. They take precisely the same interest in the property which he had at the time of his death and have no greater or better claim than he had.”

PRESTON, P. J.

The action is to determine conflicting claims to certain real property located in the county of Los Angeles, California.

The plaintiff is the widow of Andrew Carlson and the defendant is the executor of the last will and testament of the said Andrew Carlson, deceased prior to the time of the commencement of the action.

In the main, the facts are stipulated and may be here detailed. On the seventh day of January, 1920, Andrew Carlson was the owner of the real property here involved. At or about that time he proposed marriage to the plaintiff, then known by the name of Sarah A. Reasoner. It seems that in her consideration of the proposal, she then being of the mature age of seventy-two, the thought of future security against age and want entered into her mind. She told Carlson that before she would agree to a marriage there must be some provision made for her. Accordingly, Carlson consented to making a transfer to her of the property. They consulted a lawyer on the subject and first was discussed the plan of making a will. Plaintiff demurred to this, stating that she wanted the affair fixed up once and for all and with no fear of future disturbance or litigation. The lawyer advised a straight deed as being the simplest, and most effective method of vesting plaintiff with the full title. This being satisfactory to all concerned', the lawyer, at the request of Carlson, prepared the deed which was then executed by Carlson and duly acknowledged. It was then delivered to plaintiff, who, being not familiar with the procedure usual to such transactions, inquired as to what she should do with the instrument. Carlson and the lawyer both advised her that she should have the deed recorded. This was done and after recordation the deed was returned to her.

[209]

On the day succeeding the delivery of the deed the couple were married and lived happily thereafter up to the date of the death of said Andrew Carlson, making their home on the property deeded to the wife.

Andrew Carlson left a will which was admitted to probate and the defendant and appellant was duly appointed executor of said will and of the estate of the decedent.

The claim of defendant is that at the time of his death the said Andrew Carlson was the owner of the property and that the same immediately vested in the heirs of decedent and in the said executor for purposes of administration.

Carlson v. Carlson

AI Brief

PRESTON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief