La Liberty v. La Liberty

California Court of Appeal Nov 23, 1932 No. Docket No. 997.Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a prenuptial agreement to convey property is valid and enforceable when entered into freely without fraud or undue influence, and that such agreements are not subject to the same strict scrutiny as transactions between spouses during marriage.

Issues

Whether a prenuptial agreement to convey property is enforceable despite the subsequent marriage of the parties.
Whether the trial court's findings regarding the absence of fraud and undue influence were supported by sufficient evidence.
Whether the appellant was entitled to independent legal advice regarding the property transfer.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The inferences of fraud and undue influence which require the courts to carefully examine a contract between a husband and wife, where one has gained an advantage over the other, do not necessarily apply to prenuptial contracts”

“Marriage or a promise to marry is a sufficient consideration for a marriage settlement, unless the marriage is one prohibited by law.”

“It is the duty of the trial court to pass upon the weight and sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. We cannot disturb its findings simply because of conflicts in the evidence.”

MARKS, J.

This is an action brought by respondent for the partition of four lots in the city of Los Angeles in which he alleges he and appellant each owned a one-half interest. The parties are husband and wife and both are of mature

[671]

age. They became acquainted in February or March, 1921, were married in January, 1923, and separated in 1926. They had both been previously married, respondent once, and appellant twice.

In August, 1922, appellant purchased two of the four lots in question here and had them conveyed to' herself. During the same month she arranged to acquire, under an executory contract of purchase and sale, the two additional lots which are the subject of this action. This was about five months before her marriage with respondent. The purchasers named in the contract were “George A. La Liberty and Bertha C. La Liberty, his wife, as joint tenants with right of. survivorship ’ ’. The purchase price of the lots was fully paid before this action was instituted.

Shortly after her marriage to respondent, appellant deeded the two lots which had been granted to her in August, 1922, to S. A. Durfee who immediately reconveyed them to “Geo. A. La Liberty and Bertha C. La Liberty, his wife, as joint tenants”. Appellant alleged in her answer that the joint tenancy deed was executed by Durfee pursuant to her instructions. iShe also alleged that this transaction was consummated “so as to constitute plaintiff an owner” of the property in joint tenancy with her.

By an instrument dated December 1, 1923, the parties hereto leased the property in question to the Julian Petroleum Corporation for a term of five years commencing January 1, 1924, and received from it a substantial monthly rental. All parties signed this lease.

By a deed dated November 20, 1928, respondent conveyed a one-half interest in the four lots to Elizabeth M. La Liberty, his sister, who reconveyed to him on the following day.

Respondent, instituted this action seeking a partition of the four lots, and the money in a joint bank account in which the rental from them had been deposited. Appellant in her answer asserted title in the real property and the money in herself and sought to escape the legal effect of the contract of purchase of the two lots, and the deeds to the two others, because of the alleged fraud and undue influence on the part of respondent. The trial court with great particularity found all issues in favor of respondent and against

La Liberty v. La Liberty

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief