Hennessy v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.

California Court of Appeal Jul 24, 1924 No. Civ. No. 4358.Published

Before: Houser

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's action to quiet title was barred by the statute of limitations because the decedent failed to bring an action for recovery of the property within five years of its purchase, and the statute of limitations continued to run after her death.

Issues

Whether an action to quiet title to real property is barred by the statute of limitations when the decedent failed to bring such an action within five years of the property's purchase.
Whether the statute of limitations for the recovery of real property is tolled by the death of the claimant or the absence of administration on the estate.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It would seem clear that the action was barred at the time of Mrs. Cassidy’s death.”

“Even had she died before the lapse of five years after the property was purchased, the statute would not have been tolled, either pending the appointment of an administrator of her estate or after an administrator had been appointed.”

HOUSER, J.

The suit here involved was brought for the purpose of quieting title to certain real property situated in the county of Los Angeles. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered in favor of the defendants.

On the trial it was stipulated that on May 8, 1873, the common source of title was in a certain named person, at

[237]

which time the property was conveyed to one Patrick Cassidy, who was a married man, and who, on October 8, 1878, made and recorded a declaration of homestead covering the property, and in which declaration his wife, Bridget Cassidy, did not join. Seven years later the wife died. Within three years after the wife’s death Patrick Cassidy conveyed all of said property in different parcels to defendants’ predecessors', and of such property, ever since such respective conveyances, they, with the defendants herein, have been in continuous possession and have paid all taxes levied or assessed thereon. No administration was ever had on the estate of Bridget Cassidy, deceased, until more than thirty-five years had elapsed after her death, "at which time plaintiff herein was appointed, qualified, .and at all times here involved was the administratrix of the estate of Bridget Cassidy, deceased.

As a part of plaintiff’s case a tender and offer of proof were made of the following facts: That Bridget Cassidy inherited money from her parents; that with said money she purchased the property which is the subject of this action; that at the time of the signing and recording of the declaration of homestead herein before referred to, Patrick Cassidy and Bridget Cassidy were husband and wife and that they, together with their family of four children, actually resided on said property; and that the actual value of said property did not exceed the sum of five thousand dollars. Plaintiff further offered to prove each and all of the several facts set forth in said declaration of homestead.

Defendants objected to the evidence so offered and to each and every part thereof on the grounds that the same was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; that plaintiff was not a proper party plaintiff; and that it affirmatively appeared that plaintiff’s rights, if any, had been barred by laches, as well as by the provisions of each of sections 318, 319, 320, and 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Hennessy v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.

AI Brief

HOUSER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief