Elliott v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.

California Court of Appeal Mar 24, 1913 No. Civ. No. 1292.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's finding that the deed was never delivered was supported by the evidence, as the manual transfer of the deed to the grantee for the purpose of placing it in a safety deposit box did not constitute legal delivery. Furthermore, the court held that no resulting trust arose from the son's purchase of the property for his mother, as the law presumes such a transaction to be a gift.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding that the deed was never delivered to the grantee.
Whether the evidence supported the finding that the property purchase was a gift rather than a resulting trust.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A grant cannot be delivered to the grantee conditionally. Delivery to him, or to his agent as such, is necessarily absolute, and the instrument takes effect thereupon, discharged of any condition on which the delivery was made.”

“the presumption of law owing to the relationship of the parties is that the property was intended as a gift from the son to his mother.”

Synopsis

Deed—Delivery—Parol Understanding to Postpone Operation Un- , til Death op Grantor.—When a deed absolute in form is delivered the title vests in the grantee named therein, and its operation as a transfer of title cannot be defeated by parol proof of an understanding that it should not take effect except in the event of the grantor’s death.

Id.—Pleading—Effect of Denial of Delivery.—In an action involving the delivery of a deed, the defendants cannot claim judgment on the plaintiff’s allegation of delivery which they have denied.

Id.—Execution of Deed—Meaning of “Executed.”'—The word “executed,” when used with reference to a conveyance, technically comprehends both the signing, and the delivery, but the word is frequently used in the narrower and popular sense to express the act of subscribing or signing the instrument.

Id.—Deposit of Deed With Grantee—When not Delivery.—A deed deposited with the grantee for other purposes than delivery does not operate as a conveyance.

Id.—Deposit of Deed in Safe Deposit—Access to Box by Both Parties.—Where a woman, intending that her son shall have certain property in case of her death, delivers a deed thereof to him, with instructions to deposit it in a safe deposit box to which both have access, a delivery is not thereby effected.

Id.—Purchase by Son for Mother—Gift or Resulting Trust.— Where a son purchases property with his own money and causes the title to be made to his mother, the presumption arises, owing to the relationship of the parties, that a gift, rather than a resulting trust, is intended.

SHAW, J.

Action to quiet title, the complaint as originally filed being in the usual form.

Plaintiff is the mother of Carl A. Jewell, deceased; defendant Blanche E. Jewell is his widow, the two constituting his sole heirs. Defendant Merchants Bank

Trust Company is the administrator of the estate of deceased and as such, by answer, claimed the right to possession and the rents, issues, and profits of the property in question pending administration. Blanche E. Jewell filed an answer whereby she denied plaintiff’s title to the whole of the property and alleged that title thereto was vested in herself and plaintiff as owners thereof in common.

[538]

The court gave judgment for plaintiff, from which, and an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial, they appeal.

At the commencement of the trial, plaintiff, by leave of court, filed an amendment to her complaint whereby she alleged that on the twenty-second day of August, 1910, she made and acknowledged a deed to the property, naming Carl A. Jewell grantee therein, and on said day delivered said deed to said Jewell, with the intention that the deed should be recorded and become operative only in the event of said Jewell surviving her, and the same was accepted by him in escrow with the understanding that it should not be recorded or operate as a conveyance of the title to him except in the event of plaintiff’s death before that of Jewell; that the deed was not recorded by Jewell, but after his death defendants found the same among his papers and, without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, recorded it; that plaintiff is informed and believes that defendants claim title to the property under said deed. The deed was absolute in form and the delivery thereof to the grantee named therein, as alleged in the amendment, was in escrow subject to the grantee surviving the grantor, in which case it was to operate as a conveyance; otherwise, to be inoperative for such purpose. Section 1056, of the Civil Code, provides: “A grant cannot be delivered to the grantee conditionally. Delivery to him, or to his agent as such, is necessarily absolute, and the instrument takes effect thereupon, discharged of any condition on which the delivery was made.” When a deed absolute in form is delivered the title vests in the grantee named therein, and its operation as a transfer of title cannot be defeated by parol proof- of an understanding that it should not take effect except in the event of the grantor’s death.

Elliott v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief