Rozelle v. Gunn

California Court of Appeal Jul 27, 1955 No. Civ. No. 20988Published

Before: Doran

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment quieting title in the respondents, holding that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proving their own title and failed to demonstrate a lack of substantial evidence supporting the trial court's findings.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's findings regarding the ownership of the disputed property.
Whether the appellant established superior title to the property in a quiet title action.
Whether the alleged forgery or invalidity of certain conveyances in the chain of title required reversal of the judgment.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the plaintiff, in an action to quiet title, “must recover, if at all, on the strength of his own title and not upon the weakness of the defendant’s claim.””

“Unless it clearly appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there substantial evidence to support a finding of the trier of fact, it cannot be set aside on appeal.”

“the appellant has not demonstrated that there is no substantial evidence in support of the findings.”

DORAN, J. The complaint herein seeks to quiet title to certain real estate described as Lot 13 in Palmdale Colony Lands, with the exception of 3.94 acres not involved in this appeal. The land was purchased by plaintiff Rozelle from the State of California on August 20, 1945. A trial without jury resulting in findings that plaintiff was the owner of the described property “except the southwest quarter of said Lot 13,” which latter portion was found to be owned by the defendants Jay Frederick and wife. Judgment was entered quieting title accordingly. Plaintiff now appeals from that [591]portion of the judgment which quiets title in the respondents Frederick to the southwest quarter of Lot 13.

The record discloses certain recorded conveyances constituting a chain of title under which respondents claim, and attacked by appellant as being invalid:

March 24, 1951. Grant deed from appellant Rozelle to W. H. Morris, covering Lot 13 as described in the complaint.

April 3, 1951. Grant deed from W. H. Morris and wife to Elmer Gunn and wife, conveying an undivided one-half interest in Lot 13.

June 2, 1951. Quitclaim deed from Elmer Gunn and wife to W. H. Morris and wife, of an undivided one-half interest in the Southwest Quarter of Lot 13.

October 15, 1951. Grant deed from W. H. Morris and wife to John Y. Gosselin, of the Southwest Quarter of Lot 13.

October 15, 1951. Grant deed from John Y. Gosselin to respondents Jay Frederick and wife, of the Southwest Quarter of Lot 13.

In respect to the deed of March 24, 1951, from Rozelle to Morris, mentioned above, appellant’s brief recites that after making an agreement to sell the property to Morris, “Appellant commenced an action for rescission against said W. H. Morris, et al., on April 9, 1952 (Rozelle v. Morris, Sup. Ct. No. 597877) for breach of said agreement. On July 20, 1952, appellant and said W. H. Morris agreed to completely cancel and rescind their agreement of March 23, 1951, by the return of money and notes by appellant and by the delivery of the deed by said W. II. Morris to appellant conveying all the said land back to appellant and by both parties stipulating to dismiss said action.” About September 1, 1952, appellant received a notice of foreclosure on the land, and then learned that the defendants herein claimed some interest, whereupon the present action was filed.

Rozelle v. Gunn

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief