Holbert v. Wilson

NOURSE, J. pro tem.* Defendant appeals from a decree by the terms of which he is ordered to convey certain real property to the plaintiff.

The complaint and the findings of fact are, to say the least, inartifieially drawn, but we have reached the conclusion that by the complaint, facts are alleged which spell out a cause of action and that by the findings, facts are found, which support that cause of action; and, that therefore, even though it may be that the trial court reached its decision on an erroneous theory, its judgment, being in fact correct, must be affirmed. (Sears v. Rule, 27 Cal.2d 131, 140 [163 P.2d 443] ; Bank of America v. Vannini, 140 Cal.App.2d 120, 127 [295 P.2d 102].)

The following facts may be gleaned from the complaint, although not clearly alleged therein: Plaintiff was a sister of one Anna Hilburn, hereinafter called “Anna,” and a relationship of trust and confidence existed between them; in 1933 Anna deeded the real property in question to plaintiff and plaintiff in consideration of the deed undertook to provide care, comfort and sustenance for Anna during her life; [177]in 1952 plaintiff conveyed the property to Anna without consideration; Anna agreed that the property would be kept by her and the title would be vested in plaintiff at Anna’s death and that Anna would hold the record title to the property during her lifetime in order that she might have a feeling of security but that the property should in fact remain that of the plaintiff; defendant had actual knowledge of this agreement between the plaintiff and the decedent and, despite this knowledge, induced Anna to convey the property to him without consideration. These facts spell out a constructive trust under which defendant held title for the benefit of the plaintiff. (Sherman v. Sandell, 106 Cal. 373, 374-375 [39 P. 797]; Taylor v. Morris, 163 Cal. 717, 722-723 [127 P. 66]; Stobie v. Stobie, 116 Cal.App.2d 360, 366-368 [253 P.2d 765]; Civ. Code, §2243.)

Each of the facts which we have heretofore set forth as being alleged in the complaint was found by the trial court to be true and the evidence supports these findings. The trial court further found that Anna was induced to convey the property to the defendant through undue influence imposed upon her by him but we need not here determine whether or not such findings are supported by the evidence; for, as the evidence supports the court’s finding of the trust upon which Anna held the property and its finding that defendant took record title to the property with knowledge of that trust he became a constructive trustee and it is immaterial whether he induced Anna to breach her trust through undue influence or she breached it of her own volition.