Dargie v. Patterson

On October 20, 1910, William E. Dargie signed a deed purporting to convey to the defendant, Etta I. Patterson, a parcel of land in the city of Oakland. Dargie died on February 10, 1911. By the present action his widow attacks the validity of said deed upon the ground, principally, that the land described in it was community property of herself and William E. Dargie; that the conveyance was without consideration, and that she had not consented to it. The complaint also contains an allegation that the instrument was never delivered. The answer of the defendant put in issue *Page 716 many of the allegations of the complaint. Before the case came on for trial, two of the three executors of the will of William E. Dargie intervened, and joined with the plaintiff in assailing the conveyance.

When the case came on for trial the parties entered into a stipulation disposing of many of the issues raised by the pleadings. It was admitted, for the purposes of the trial, that William E. Dargie and the plaintiff were husband and wife from December 15, 1881, until the death of Dargie; that all of the estate left by Dargie, as well as the property covered by the deed in controversy, was community property; that there was no consideration for said deed, and that the same was executed without the knowledge of the plaintiff, and without her consent, oral or written. Findings were made in accord with the stipulation.

Evidence was offered on the issue of delivery, and the court found that the instrument was delivered to the defendant on October 20, 1910.

Finding these facts, with some others which, so far as necessary, will be referred to later, the court concluded that the deed under which defendant claims the property is wholly void; that defendant has no right, title, or interest in or to said real property, and that the whole thereof is community property of William E. Dargie and the plaintiff, and forms a part of the estate of said William E. Dargie, deceased. From the judgment entered pursuant to these conclusions, the defendant appeals.

The questions presented for decision turn upon the effect of the amendment of 1891 (Stats. 1891, p. 425) to section 172 of the Civil Code. That section as originally enacted provided: "The husband has the management and control of the community property, with the like absolute power of disposition other than testamentary as he has of his separate estate." By the amendment referred to these words were added: "Provided, however, that he cannot make a gift of such community property, or convey the same without a valuable consideration, unless the wife, in writing, consent thereto." The proviso was first brought to the attention of this court in Spreckels v.Spreckels, 116 Cal. 339, [58 Am. St. Rep. 170, 36 L. R. A. 497, 48 P. 228]. The decision in that case went off on the ground that the amendment could not operate upon property acquired and owned before the *Page 717 enactment of the proviso. Neither in that case nor in any other decided up to the time when the first briefs on the present appeal were filed was there a ruling by this court touching the effect of the amendment on conveyances of community property acquired after the proviso became law. We have, however, during the pendency of this appeal had occasion to consider this very subject. Our recent decision in a second case entitledSpreckels v. Spreckels, 172 Cal. 775, [158 P. 537], has removed from the field of controversy some of the questions which counsel in the present appeal have elaborately argued in their briefs. We there said, among other things (172 Cal., p. 782, 158 P. 539): "The proviso of 1891 does not render a gift of community property by the husband without the consent of the wife void as to him, nor confer upon him, in his lifetime, or upon his personal representatives after his death, any right or power to revoke the gift or recover the property. There is nothing in the language to express the idea that the title does not, as before, remain wholly in him. The provision is merely for a limitation upon his power to dispose of it. He is bound by his own gift as fully as if it was of his separate estate."