Flournoy v. Flournoy

California Supreme Court Nov 5, 1890 No. No. 13732Published

Before: Works

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that real estate purchased by a wife, intended by both spouses to be her separate property, remains her separate estate regardless of the husband's voluntary payments toward the purchase price or his participation in securing loans for the property. Consequently, the proceeds from the sale of said property belong entirely to the wife.

Issues

Whether real estate purchased by a wife with the intent that it be her separate property constitutes separate or community property when the husband contributes funds or joins in security instruments.
Whether a husband's voluntary payment of a balance due on his wife's separate property converts that property into community property.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The intention was, that it should be her separate property, and so it must be held to be.”

“The husband could not, by voluntarily paying the balance due on the property, convert it into community property to that extent.”

“For these reasons, we are constrained to hold that the whole of this property was the separate estate of the plaintiff”

Synopsis

Husband and Wife — Purchase by Wife—Loan by Husband — Separate Property. — Where a husband loans money to his wife to make a part payment upon the purchase price of certain real estate bought by her, there being no intention that he should, by virtue of such loan, become a part owner in the land, but the intention of both parties being that the property should be her separate property, to be paid for out of separate property which she then owned, such loan gives the husband no interest in the land, as between the husband and wife, but the whole thereof becomes her separate property.

Id. —Money Raised by Joint Mortgage on Wife’s Separate Property. — Where a wife, to whom real estate had been conveyed as her separate property, joins with her husband in a note and mortgage upon the land, to raise money to pay off a prior mortgage thereon, the money thus realized is her separate property.

Id. — Deed to Wife — Escrow—Purchase-money — Voluntary Payment by Husband—Advancement. —Where the deed to a wife of property purchased by her as her separate estate is delivered in escrow till the whole purchase price is paid, the voluntary payment by the husband of the balance due on the property out of his own separate funds, without her knowledge or consent, accrues to the wife, and gives the husband no right or interest in the property. The husband cannot, by such payment, convert the separate property of the wife into community property, and the payment will be deemed an advancement for her benefit.

Id.—Dealings between Husband and Wife—Intention of Parties — Separate Property of Wife. —In dealings between husband and wife, the intention of the parties is of paramount importance, where the question as to the effect of a conveyance of real estate arises between themselves; and where it appears that a conveyance to the wife was intended, as between the husband and- wife, to vest the title to the property in her as her separate estate, the courts will respect their intention, and, as between themselves, will uphold her title to the property, although the legal effect of the purchase and conveyance would, independent of such intention, make the property community.

Works, J. This is an action brought by a wife against her husband to recover upon a promissory note, and for money had and received. The defendant set up a counterclaim for money loaned. The court below found in favor of the plaintiff on the note, and for a part of the amount claimed by her for money had and received, and allowed the defendant a part of his counterclaim. The plaintiff appeals on the judgment roll. There is no controversy as to the correctness of the finding and judgment upon the note and the counterclaim. The contest [290]is as to the amount allowed the plaintiff for money had £nd received. The real matter of controversy is as to the character of certain moneys claimed by the wife, whether the same was her separate estate or community property.

The facts, as disclosed by the findings, are these, in substance: That certain real estate was sold to the plaintiff for $4,750, and a deed therefor executed to her; that it was the intention and expectation of the parties that the consideration therefor should be paid by the plaintiff out of her separate estate, and that thereupon the property should be her separate property; that, on the day said real estate was purchased, the defendant loaned the plaintiff $600, which sum was by the defendant, at the instance of the plaintiff, paid to the party who conveyed said property to the plaintiff, and, as a part of the consideration therefor, that the plaintiff promised to repay said sum to defendant, and defendant expected the same to be paid out of her separate property; that the plaintiff, at that time, had separate property of the value of between $7,200 and $9,200; that, upon the payment of said $600, a deed for the property was delivered in escrow till the balance of the purchase price should be paid; that, afterwards, the plaintiff paid upon the property, of her separate funds, $2,000; that said deed contained a covenant on the part of the plaintiff to pay off a mortgage standing against said property for $1,000; that plaintiff and defendant borrowed $3,000, and gave their joint note therefor, and joined in a mortgage on said property to secure the payment thereof; that $2,000 of said sum was paid to the plaintiff, and $1,000 thereof applied to the payment of the mortgage for that amount, which she had covenanted to pay; that the balance of the consideration for the property purchased by the plaintiff, $1,150, was paid by the defendant out of his own separate estate, without the request or knowledge of the plaintiff, and thereupon the deed was taken out of [291]

Flournoy v. Flournoy

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief