Mussler v. Nash

SCOTT (Robert H.), J. pro tem. Defendants and cross-complainants Stoike appeal from an adverse judgment relating to a parcel of real property. They sought to require plaintiff Mrs. Mussler to convey the property to them. Plaintiff obtained judgment quieting title to the property in her as [495]against defendants. Other parties to the action who were involved in the dealings but do not participate in this appeal are defendants Nash.

The controversy involved three parcels of improved real property:

(1) Mrs. Mussler’s “Valley Boulevard” property.

(2) The Nashes’ “El Monte” property.

(3) The Stoikes’ “Colton” property.

Mrs. Mussler and the Nashes decided to trade properties and entered into an escrow for that purpose. Mrs. Mussler moved into the El Monte property. The Nashes decided they would prefer Stoikes’ Colton property and arranged to let the Stoikes have the Valley Boulevard property in exchange. The plan would result in Mrs. Mussler getting the El Monte property—the Nashes getting the Colton property and the Stoikes getting the Valley Boulevard property.

It was decided that Mrs. Mussler would deed her Valley Boulevard property direct to the Stoikes instead of making a deed to the Nashes who would then have deeded it to the Stoikes.

If each party had owned her or their property outright there might have been no difficulty, but that was not the case. It appears that each owned only an equity in her or their respective parcels, but that these equities were substantially equal.

While the deals were in escrow Nash cancelled his escrow instructions and repudiated his contract with Mrs. Mussler. Later that year he was adjudicated bankrupt. The El Monte property was sold by the trustee under power of sale provided for in the trust deed. So that parcel dropped out of the picture. Then, too, the Colton property was lost to the parties by foreclosure.

This left only the Valley Boulevard property with Mrs. Mussler and the Stoikes both claiming it. The trial court decided that it belonged to Mrs. Mussler and from this decision the Stoikes appeal.

It is not contended by the Stoikes that when Mrs. Mussler moved into the El Monte property and temporarily occupied it she acquired title thereby. (In re Chrisman, 35 P.Supp. 282.)