Pretzer v. Pretzer

California Supreme Court Jun 23, 1932 No. Docket No. L.A. 12351.Published

Before: Tyler

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a deed to community property executed by a husband without his wife's consent is not void, but is valid and binding as to the husband's one-half interest. Consequently, the trial court erred in canceling the deed and quieting title to the entire property in the wife.

Issues

Whether a deed to community property executed by a husband without his wife's consent is void or merely ineffective as to the wife's interest.
Whether the evidence supported the finding that the property was community property acquired through the joint earnings of the spouses.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A deed to community property, executed without the wife’s consent, while ineffective as to her interest, is valid and binding as to the husband’s one-half interest.”

“the grantee named in such a deed would acquire an interest in the property and the deed should not, therefore, be decreed to be wholly void and should not be canceled.”

[660]

TYLER, J., pro tem.

Action to cancel a deed and quiet title to certain real property. The action was instituted •

Margaret Pretzer against Heinrich Pretzer, her former husband, and Peter Pretzer, her father-in-law. The deed • sought to be canceled was executed July 15, 1926, by the husband to his father. Heinrich Pretzer and Margaret Pretzer were married in the year 1921 and they separated December 4, 1928. In 1929 plaintiff instituted an action for divorce against her husband. In such action she asked to be awarded the custody of a minor child, support for herself and such child, and also a division of the property consisting of the real estate here involved and some personal property, all of which was alleged to be the community property of the parties. After trial the court found in favor of plaintiff, granted her an interlocutory decree of divorce, gave her the custody of the minor child, with pro-' vision for its support, and decreed that the property was community in character and disposed of it between them. As to the real property here involved, the decree awarded an undivided one-half interest to each, and each was decreed to be the owner of such interest. The husband’s interest was impressed with a lien to insure the payment of twenty-five dollars per month for the care and support of the minor child. The interlocutory decree was rendered June 12, 1929, and it became final, no appeal having been taken therefrom.

The present action was commenced October 19, 1929. In the first cause of action, which is one to quiet title; it is alleged that Margaret Pretzer and Heinrich Pretzer are the owners of the property in question and it is sought to quiet their title against the estate or interest in the property asserted by Peter Pretzer under his deed. The second cause of action alleged that the property was acquired by Margaret and Heinrich Pretzer during coverture as community property; that the deed from Heinrich Pretzer to Peter Pretzer was made without the knowledge or consent of Margaret Pretzer, and without her joining therein, and without consideration therefor, and for the purpose of defrauding her out of her interest in the property. To this complaint the father and son filed a joint answer. Ownership in Margaret and Heinrich was denied and it was

[661]

Pretzer v. Pretzer

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief