Scheidle v. Joergensen
Before: Brown, Gerald
Opinion
BROWN (Gerald), P. J. Clarence P. Scheidle and Phyllis Scheidle, who are husband and wife, brought this declaratory relief action against Mrs. Scheidle’s brother, Donald P. Joergensen, his wife Dawn S. Joergensen [141]and others to determine who was entitled to $4,115.85 in fire insurance proceeds. From a judgment determining the Scheidles were entitled to half of the money and the Joergensens were entitled to the other half, the Joergensens have appealed.
At the time of trial the Joergensens represented themselves, although they had had various counsel at other stages in the proceedings and are now represented by counsel on appeal. The Scheidles were represented by an attorney at the trial, but have not filed a responding brief on appeal.
The Joergensens’ counsel concedes the record is in a “state of near chaos.” Actually, it is worse than that.
This case presents a highly complex situation of a parcel of real property which has been subjected to numerous ownership and security transactions, some of which were recorded and at least one of which was not. To detail all the transactions would only tend to obfuscate the issues. We will deal only with those facts which tend to shed light on the relationship of the parties material to their rights in this action.
The Joergensens owned a parcel of commercial property located in Lemon Grove. The property was encumbered by a first trust deed held by San Diego Federal Savings and Loan Association. In 1959 the Joergensens executed a note secured by a deed of trust to George E. and Ruth E. Latham. By assignment the Scheidles became holders of the Latham note and deed of trust. It was second in priority to the encumbrance held by San Diego Federal.
The real property and improvements were insured through a Lemon Grove insurance agency which placed fire insurance on the property with two insurers. Both policies contain clauses making losses payable to mortgagees. On both policies three mortgagees are named, San Diego Federal as first, the Scheidles as second and a third encumbrance not material to this appeal. The named insureds on the policies of insurance are the Joergensens. It appears statements for the premiums on the policies were sent to the Joergensens in care of the Scheidles and were paid by check by Mrs. Scheidle. It is unclear whether the Scheidles paid the premiums out of income from the property or from their own funds.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)