Condaffer v. Hoskinson

DRAPEAU, J. pro tem.* In 1931 Walter S. Huyek owned a 40-acre ranch near Lompoc, in Santa Barbara Comity, California. He had a trust deed upon the ranch, securing [354]the payment of his promissory note for $12,000 and interest. Payments on the debt being in default, the beneficiary directed sale of the real property, as required by the terms of the trust deed.

At this juncture, other members of the Huyck family, a sister-in-law and two brothers, came to Walter’s rescue. They raised the money and paid off the note. Then Walter and his wife conveyed the ranch to the sister-in-law and two brothers, as joint tenants.

The complaint in this action alleges, and the evidence on the trial of it supports the allegation, that the grantees under the joint tenancy deed promised to hold title to the property for Walter’s benefit, to apply the profits from crops on the ranch to the money they had advanced, and whenever it was repaid to them, to deed the ranch back to Walter. Thus we have the familiar legal allegation that a deed was in fact a mortgage, with a prayer in the complaint to impress a trust upon the property, and for an accounting.

As the years went by, Walter Huyck died, leaving his widow, Dora Huyck Condaffer, surviving (who later married), and one daughter, Elleta Huyck Hoskinson.

On the other side of the family the two brothers died, vesting title to the ranch in the sister-in-law, Augusta B. Huyck, as surviving joint tenant. But by her will she devised the property to two nephews and one niece, and not to Walter’s widow or to her heirs.

Before the final decree of distribution in Augusta’s estate was made, Walter Huyck’s widow, Dora, brought this action, as special administratrix of her husband’s estate, and in her individual capacity. Lis pendens was filed and recorded.

Thereafter the property was distributed by the probate court to Augusta’s niece and nephews, as directed by her will. These people are not named in the complaint as parties defendant, the sole defendant being Augusta’s executrix.

As commented upon in the briefs, the plaintiff administratrix, Dora, and the defendant executrix, Elleta, are mother and daughter. And Elleta is manifestly favorably inclined to plaintiff’s case.

Upon the trial, evidence in support of plaintiffs’ cause of action was presented, and the case was continued for further testimony in the form of depositions. It appearing that the trial judge was about to be elevated to the appellate bench, counsel agreed that the case be submitted for decision upon the evidence already taken, and waived the taking of the