Echols v. Echols

California Court of Appeal Dec 18, 1929 No. Docket No. 3920.Published

Before: Preston

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the property conveyed by the husband to his wife via grant deed became her separate property, as the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the husband intended to make a gift of the property.

Issues

Whether property conveyed by a husband to his wife via grant deed retains its character as community property.
Whether the trial court's findings regarding the intent to make a gift are 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 case, in its last analysis, presents only a question of fact, and there is abundant evidence in the record to support the findings of the trial court”

PRESTON (H. L.), J.,

pro

tem.

The plaintiff, William Echols, brought this action against his wife and daughter to quiet title to two lots situated in the city of Glendale. Judgment was entered in favor of his wife and daughter, and he has appealed.

The property in controversy was acquired by the said William Echols and Mary B. Echols, his wife, on March 2, 1906, with community funds, and the deed was taken in the names of “Mary B. Echols and William Echols, her husband. ’ ’ The title stood in both names until April 9, 1910, on which date the said William Echols made, executed and delivered to his wife, Mary B. Echols, a grant deed conveying all of his interest in said property to her. Said deed was in the usual form and contained no reservations whatever, and recited a consideration of “love and affection, which the said party of the first part (William Echols) has and bears unto the said party of the second part (Mary B. Echols); as also for the better maintenance, support, protection and livelihood of said party of the second part.

Since the execution of this deed, the property has at all times stood of record in the name of the said Mary B. Echols, and she has had exclusive control and management of the same, and paid all taxes levied or assessed against the same; except, that on the fifteenth day of July, 1923, Mary B. Echols conveyed a portion thereof to her daughter, Della Echols, one of the defendants and respondents herein. Della Echols has remained the owner and in possession of the property conveyed to her ever since she received the conveyance from her mother.

[622]

This action was commenced by William Echols on April 21, 1925, which

was over fifteen years after he had conveyed the property to his wife.

The theory and com e appellant seems to be that, although he com ' - to his wife on April 9, 1910, neverthei ;y retained its character as community prc itention is entirely without merit.

Section 164 of the Civil Code provides, in part: “Whenever any property is conveyed to a married woman by an instrument in writing, the

Echols v. Echols

AI Brief

PRESTON (H. L.), J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief