Schuyler v. Broughton

California Supreme Court Jul 28, 1886 No. No. 11048Published

Before: McKee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that real property purchased by a married woman using both separate funds and borrowed funds (not secured by existing separate property) is community property to the extent of the borrowed funds, making the husband's interest in that portion subject to execution for his debts. Consequently, the wife and husband became tenants in common, and the purchaser at the execution sale was entitled to a deed for the husband's interest.

Issues

Whether real property purchased by a married woman using a mix of separate funds and borrowed funds is separate or community property.
Whether a purchaser at an execution sale against a husband is entitled to a deed when the property was purchased in part with community funds.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Where real property has been conveyed to a married woman by a deed which shows on its face a consideration paid by her, the legal presumption is that the property was purchased by community funds, and became community property”

“money borrowed by her for that purpose during marriage will be regarded in law as community property, unless it be borrowed by her upon the faith of existing separate property”

“the wife therefore became a tenant in common of the land with her husband in proportion of the separate estate to the whole purchase price.”

Synopsis

Husband and Wife — Deed to Married Woman—Community Property-—-Presumption.—Real property conveyed to a married woman by a deed which shows on its face a consideration paid by her is presumed to have been purchased with community funds, and to be community property, and as such is liable for the debts of the husband. The presumption may be overcome by extrinsic proof that the consideration paid was the separate funds of the wife; but in the absence of such evidence, the presumption is absolute and conclusive.

Id.—Money Borrowed by Married Woman — Investment of.—Money borrowed by a married woman to invest in real property during her marriage is community property, unless it be borrowed by her upon the faith of her existing separate property, which she mortgages or pledges as security for its payment, or against which her contract may be enforced.

Id. — Consideration for Purchase — Partly Separate and Partly Borrowed Money. — Real property purchased by a married woman in her own name, partly with money belonging to her separate funds, and partly with money borrowed by her for that purpose, becomes in part the separate property of the wife, and in part community property. In such a case, the wife becomes a tenant in common of the land with her husband in the proportion that the separate funds paid by her bear to the whole purchase price.

Id. — Community Interest Liable for Husband’s Debts. — Lands so purchased, so far as they are community property, may be taken in satisfaction of an execution against the husband.

McKee, J. By an execution issued upon a money judgment recovered on the 18th of February, 1884, by Henry Miller against W. H. Schuyler, the sheriff of Santa Barbara County levied upon a tract of land as the property of the judgment debtor. The land was afterward sold at execution sale according to law to the [283]judgment creditor, to whom the sheriff issued a certificate of sale, which entitled the purchaser to a deed if the land was not redeemed from the sale within the time allowed by law for that purpose. No redemption having been made within statutory time, the sheriff was about to execute and deliver to the purchaser a deed, when the plaintiff in this action, who is the wife of the judgment debtor, sued out an injunction to restrain the sheriff from executing and delivering such a deed, upon the ground that the land is her separate property, and was not subject to the judgment and execution against her husband, and that the deed, if executed and delivered, will create a cloud upon her title.

Admittedly, the land was acquired by the wife during marriage, and after the rendition of the judgment against her husband. But it was conveyed to her in her own name by a deed which on its face showed a consideration paid by the wife, and did not show that the land was conveyed to her to hold as her separate property.

Where real property has been conveyed to a married woman by a deed which shows on its face a consideration paid by her, the legal presumption is that the property was purchased by community funds, and became community property of the husband and wife; and as such it is liable for the debts of the husband. (Riley v. Pehl, 23 Cal. 70; Ramsdell v. Fuller, 28 Cal. 38; S. C., 87 Am. Dec. 103; Peck v. Vandenberg, 30 Cal. 11; Peck v. Brummagim, 31 Cal. 440; S. C., 89 Am. Dec. 195; Vassault v. Austin, 36 Cal. 691.)

It is true that the legal presumption which arises from the face of the deed may be overcome by extrinsic proof that the consideration paid was the separate funds of the wife (McDonald v. Badger, 23 Cal. 393; Austin v. Faught, 23 Cal. 241; Landers v. Bolton, 26 Cal. 393); but in the absence of such proof, the presumption is absolute and conclusive. (Pixley v. Huggins, 15 Cal. 129.) Presumptively, therefore, the land in controversy was the [284]

Schuyler v. Broughton

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief