Kenney v. Parks

California Supreme Court Jun 19, 1899 No. L. A. No. 405Published

Before: Garoutte

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the delivery of a deed to a third party is invalid if the grantor retains the right to recall the instrument upon the occurrence of a specific event, as this prevents the transfer of title from being absolute.

Issues

Whether the delivery of a deed to a third party constitutes a valid transfer of title when the grantor retains the right to reclaim the deed upon the death of the other party.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The essential requisite to the validity of a deed transferred under circumstances as indicated in this case is that when it is placed in the hands of a third party it has passed beyond the control of the grantor for all time.”

“Here the grantor reserved the right to recall his deed upon the happening of a certain event; when that event happened he had the right to reach out and take back the deed, and such reservation is fatal to a valid delivery.”

Synopsis

Deed—Delivery to Third Person—Death of Grantor—Control of Deed.—In order to sustain the delivery of a deed to a third person, to be delivered to the grantee upon the death of the grantor, it must appear that the grantor parted with the possession and control of the deed for all time.

Id.—Mutual Deeds of Husband and Wife—Escrow—Return of Deed of Survivor—Title not Vested.—Where a husband and' wife each executed a deed to the other, and both deeds were delivered to the cashier of a bank, with the understanding that upon the death, of either the deed to the survivor should he recorded, and the deed of the survivor returned as ineffective, noi escrow was created by the delivery of the deeds, though it was improperly called such, and no title vested under either of them.

GAROUTTE, J. This is an action in equity to reform a deed, quiet title, and for general relief. The plaintiff is the widow of Joseph A. Kenney, deceased, and the defendants are the executors of his last will and testament, joined with certain of his heirs-at-law. Judgment went for plaintiff, and this appeal is prosecuted therefrom. The leading question involved arises upon the sufficiency of the findings of fact to support the judgment, and by reason of the views we entertain upon that proposition it becomes unnecessary to review the minor matters discussed which bear upon the legal sufficiency of the complaint and which are presented by special demurrer.

The evidence presents no important conflict; and by the evidence and the findings it appears that Joseph A. Kenney, the deceased, and plaintiff were husband and wife, and each owned considerable property, both real and personal. Having no children, they entered into an agreement in writing wherein they mutually agreed to execute deeds each to the other, conveying absolutely, in fee simple, all of their respective estates, both real and personal, situate in Santa Barbara county; and agreed that said deeds should be placed as escrows in the hands of the cashier of the First National Bank in Santa Barbara, with directions to said cashier that if the plaintiff should die during the lifetime of said Joseph A. Kenney, he, the said cashier, should, on request of said Joseph A. Kenney or his agents, file the deed by the plaintiff to said Joseph A. of record in the county recorder’s office in said county; and if said Joseph A. should die during the lifetime of the plaintiff, said cashier, at the request of the plaintiff or her agent, should file said deed of Joseph A. to her in said recorder’s office. This agreement was executed and the deeds delivered to the cashier as therein provided. These deeds were inclosed in separate envelopes, and these envelopes were similarly indorsed by the respective parties, the indorsement of [149]the husband being as follows: “The inclosed deed, dated the first day of June, 1892, is herewith deposited in escrow with the cashier of the First National Bank of Santa Barbara, and the said cashier, who may be such cashier at my decease, if I should die during the lifetime of my wife, is hereby instructed and commanded at my decease, on request of my said wife or her agent, to open this envelope at once and to file the inclosed deed for record with the recorder of Santa. Barbara county.” Joseph A. Kenney died, whereupon his wife, the plaintiff, demanded of tire cashier that his deed to her be recorded, or delivered to her. This demand was refused, whereupon she inaugurated the present litigation, claiming title to the husband’s property under his aforesaid deed delivered to the cashier of the bank.

Kenney v. Parks

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief