Sheehy v. Miles (1892) · DecisionDepot

Sheehy v. Miles

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Feb 6, 1892 No. No. 13913Published

Before: Garoutte, Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A vendor under a contract for a perfect title must provide a title that is free from reasonable doubt and fairly deducible of record, rather than one requiring the vendee to investigate extrinsic facts or parol evidence to resolve potential defects. Because the title in question was subject to conflicting claims and probate irregularities that were not resolved of record, it did not meet the standard of a perfect title.

Issues

Whether a title is 'perfect' when it depends on extrinsic facts not deducible of record to resolve conflicting claims between a widow's survivorship rights and a probate homestead decree.
Whether a vendee is required to investigate and determine the validity of a title that is subject to grave doubts and potential outstanding interests in minor children.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A perfect title must be one that is good and valid beyond all reasonable doubt”

“The vendee is not required to accept a title depending upon adverse possession, or upon matters which rest purely in parol.”

“appellants’ title to this realty was not free from palpable defects and grave doubts, was not fairly deducible of record, and was not a good and valid title beyond reasonable doubt.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Opinion — Garoutte

Garoutte, J. This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover a deposit made [292]on a sale of real estate situate in the city and county of San Francisco, the plaintiff claiming the title to be defective. The condition of defendants’ title to the tract of land is the only question involved.

In the case of Turner v. McDonald, 76 Cal. 177, this court said: “A perfect title must be one that is good and valid beyond all reasonable doubt and in that case it was conceded by counsel upon both sides that a title, to be good, “ should be free from litigation, palpable defects, and grave doubts, should consist of both legal and equitable titles, and should be fairly deducible of record.” It would seem, in fairness to the vendee, that the foregoing requirements should be held absolutely necessary, in order. to fully satisfy the covenant of perfect title. Certainly such a condition of title must exist before it can be said to be good and valid beyond reasonable doubt. (See Reynolds v. Borel, 86 Cal. 538; Richmond v. Gray, 3 Allen, 27; Sturtevant v. Jaques, 14 Allen, 526.)

While the record here is silent as to the fact, we will assume that upon the fifteenth day of December, 1874, the legal and record title to this tract of land was vested in George Styles. Upon that day he filed a homestead upon the property in all respects in conformity with law, setting forth, among other things, that he resided upon the property with his family, consisting of Jane Styles, his wife, and three children, and that said property was community property. Upon March 28, 1879, he died. Upon November 4, 1880, the widow petitioned to have the property set apart as a homestead for the use of the family. The court set it apart as a homestead for the use of the family, consisting of Jane Styles, widow, and George, Robert, and William Styles, minor children. One Samson was appointed guardian of the estates of the said minors, and returned, in an inventory and appraisement, an undivided one half of said property as the estate of said minors, and upon proceedings in the probate court said property of the minors was sold to defendant Kate Miles, who at the same time received a [293]

Related research

deed of bargain and sale to all of said property from said Jane Styles. It is insisted by respondent, and was so found by the court, that by reason of the order setting aside the property as a homestead for the use of the family, the widow and children took thereof in equal shares, and that consequently the title to an undivided one-fourth interest in said property still remains in said minors, the guardian’s deed to defendant Kate Miles only purporting to convey an undivided one-half interest thereof. In 1880, at the time the order of the probate court was made setting aside this property for the use of the family, section 1468 of the Code of Civil Procedure read as follows: “ When property is set apart for the use of the family, such property shall be for the benefit of the several parties, as provided in section 1465 of this code.” Prior to April, 1880, this section provided that the widow should take one half of the property set apart, and the minor children one half. At the session of the legislature of 1881 the section was again changed, so as to read practically as it did prior to the provision of 1880. We must assume that the legislature meant something by the varied and repeated legislation with reference to this section of the code. If the quantum of this homestead property which was to pass respectively to the widow and minor children under the law as it stood in 1879 was not changed by the amendment of 1880, why the change in the law? Why idle and useless legislation? And again, why did the legislature in 1881 return to the old law? This question as to the vesting of the title to the homestead was the only subject of legislation involved in the section during all these changes, and the amendments at these various times were so substantial as to amount to repeals of the section as it previously stood. It would seem that, under the section as quoted, the widow and minor children took equal shares in this property as tenants in common: This is its intent, or it has no meaning whatever. “ When parties take title and hold as tenants in common, each will be deemed to hold an equal share, there

In this case the recitals in the homestead were not evidence to the vendee that the title was good, neither was he compelled to go out into the world upon an exploring expedition, and by an examination of witnesses determine, and perchance determine wrongly, the existence of those facts that were necessary to exist in order that Jane Styles, the widow, may have acquired this property by right of survivorship, to wit, that it was community property; that Styles and his wife resided upon the property with their children at the time the homestead was declared and recorded; that it had not been abandoned; that it was not void by reason of a previous homestead having been declared; that Styles was dead, etc. Under this agreement, which contains a covenant of perfect title, when considered in connection with the condition and appearance of this title as it is presented to us, if this were an action for specific performance, it would seem no court of equity would compel the vendee to pay ten thousand dollars for this tract of land. In addition to these matters, which are presented from a consideration of the record homestead, the vendee was confronted with this probate homestead, and the proceedings pertaining to the sale of the various interests derived therefrom. As we have seen, those authorities holding that decrees of the court setting aside probate homesteads from property upon which recorded homesteads rested were void and of no effect gave the vendee in this case no light as to the condition of this title; for he possessed no knowledge, and was not required to go forth seeking knowledge as to whether or not this recorded homestead was such as to vest title in the widow upon the death of Styles. The inference more properly to be drawn from this action of the court in setting aside the probate homestead would be that the court would not do an idle thing by making a useless [297]decree, and that from some cause shown at that time the recorded homestead was adjudged void, and that this decree was a valid decree made by the court to preserve the property to the use and benefit of the family as best it could. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that appellants’ title to this realty was not free from palpable defects and grave doubts, was not fairly deducible of record, and was not a good and valid title beyond reasonable doubt.

Concurrence — Harrison

Harrison, J., concurring. 1. Upon the facts found by the trial court, the declaration of homestead filed for record in the county recorder’s office by George Styles had the effect, upon his death, to vest in his surviving widow all the estate in the land therein described that was held by him in his lifetime; and her deed to the appellant Kate Miles transferred to her the same estate. The order of the probate court setting this land apart as a homestead for the benefit of the widow and minor children, although made upon the application of the widow, did not divest her of the title that had already vested in her by virtue of her survivorship. That court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter with which it purported to deal, and its order thereon was without any effect upon the title thus held by the surviving widow. The jurisdiction which is conferred upon the superior court “ in all matters of probate ” is separate and distinct from the ordinary jurisdiction which it exercises in civil matters, and is limited in its exercise to property of the estate of a decedent which is under its control in course of administration; and as at the instant of the husband’s death his widow became vested with the entire estate in the land, the court had no more jurisdiction over it than it had over any other land in which the decedent may have held a life estate, and could make no order affecting its title or the right to its pos[298]session. The order setting it apart as a homestead for the use of the widow and minor children had only the negative effect of declaring that it was not subject to administration, except that if the estate of the decedent had any interest in the land subject to such administration such interest would by virtue of the order pass to the widow and minor children.

Whether or not the extrinsic facts were such as to cause the filing of the declaration to impress upon the land the character and incidents of a homestead weie matters in pais, and beyond the jurisdiction of the court sitting in probate to determine. Any issue involving that question, as well as the widow’s right of survivor-ship, must be determined in a different forum, and could not be determined upon an application to the court in probate to set the property aside as a homestead. If the court, upon the contention of any party interested that the property was a part of the estate, notwithstanding the declaration of homestead that had been filed in the lifetime of the decedent, should, upon an application therefor, set it apart as a homestead, it would still follow that only such interest as belonged to the estate could be affected by such order, and any controversy between the widow claiming as survivor and the children claiming under this order could not be determined by the probate court.

2. Assuming, however, that the filing of the declaration was insufficient to impress the land with the homestead claim, and that the land was a part of the estate of the decedent subject to administration, the effect of the order setting it apart was to vest the interest of the decedent’s estate in the land so set apart in the “ several parties ” constituting the family, as is clearly shown in the opinion of Mr. Justice Garoutte, the widow and minor children each taking an undivided fourth. As the sale by the guardian did not purport to be more than of an undivided half of the property, it is evident that one fourth of whatever interest passed under the order set[299]ting it aside as a homestead is still outstanding in the minor children.

3. It is a settled rule of this court, that, under a contract for the sale of land which provides for a perfect title, the title must be free from reasonable doubt and fairly deducible of record. The vendee is not required to accept a title depending upon adverse possession, or upon matters which rest purely in parol. Under this rule, the respondent was not required to accept the title tendered him by the appellant. If the homestead created in the lifetime of Styles was for any reason ineffective, it is conceded that an undivided one fourth of the land was not embraced in that deed. The respondent was not compelled to accept the statement of the appellant, or of any one under whom she claimed, that at the time of filing the declaration the facts existed from which the homestead claim was thereby impressed upon the land, so that upon the death of Styles the title vested in his widow, nor was he under any obligation to institute such examination, and determine at his own risk whether they did exist.

4. The petition for the guardian’s sale of the interest of the minors in the land was, in my opinion, sufficient in form to give to the court jurisdiction to make the order of sale.

For these reasons the judgment should be affirmed.

Hearing in Bank denied.

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Garoutte

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Concurrence — Harrison

AI Brief