Edwards v. Deitrich
| Decision Date | 01 June 1953 |
| Citation | 118 Cal.App.2d 254,257 P.2d 750 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | EDWARDS v. DEITRICH. Civ. 15465. |
John M. Hoffmann, Howard C. Erickson, Robert V. Winkler and Hoffmann & Erickson, Oakland, for appellant.
Houlihan & Brown, Oakland, for respondent.
Does the evidence support the findings that real property purchased with community funds but deeded to a husband and wife in joint tenancy in fact was at all times or by subsequent oral agreement held by the parties as community property? That is the basic question presented on this appeal. This is the type of question that is always difficult for a trial court to answer, and that has been the fertile source of much litigation.
This is an action for declaratory relief, to quiet title and to recover possession of certain property brought by the executrix of the will of Della Deitrich against her surviving husband, it being claimed that the two parcels of realty involved were community property of defendant and his deceased wife. The trial court found that the property involved was community, and entered its judgment accordingly. Defendant husband appeals, contending that there is no substantial evidence to support the findings, or to rebut the presumption arising out of the form of the deeds. We agree with this contention.
The challenged findings read as follows:
'That on the 17th day of September, 1950, the decedent and the defendant orally agreed that all of their real and personal property was community property; that, on said date, the decedent and the defendant orally agreed to dispose of all of their real and personal property, by will, as community property;
'That notwithstanding the form of deed in which the decedent and the defendant took title to the real properties * * *, the decedent and the defendant at the time of the acquisition of said properties did not know nor understand the legal effect of the joint tenancy form; that, notwithstanding the form of deed by which the decedent and the defendant took title to the real properties * * *, the decedent and the defendant, on and after the respective dates when said properties were acquired, continued to consider their said properties as community property and dealt with and treated the same as such.'
The Deitrichs were married in Oklahoma in 1928. The came to California in 1931. Mrs. Deitrich had two children by a previous marriage, Edna Edwards, the plaintiff, and Sue Nelson, both of whom are devisees under their mother's will. From the time of their marriage in 1928 to October 1, 1950, the date of Mrs. Deitrich's death, the parties lived together as husband and wife. The husband first worked as a waiter and subsequently as a restaurant proprietor, while Mrs. Deitrich worked as a teacher and saleslady, and occasionally worked in her husband's restaurant. Their earnings, at least after they came to California, were placed in a joint bank account. In California, the parties purchased, with funds jointly earned after marriage, a chicken ranch in San Leandro. This chicken ranch was thereafter sold, the husband and wife taking as security a deed of trust valued, at the time of trial, at about $9,500. Admittedly, this deed of trust is community property, and, admittedly, Edna and Sue, under the will of decedent, is each entitled to one-quarter of its value. Title to this ranch, until its sale, was taken in the name of decedent alone, defendant explaining that his wife was opposed to the possibility of his relatives inheriting from him, and that he consented to this form of the deed to avoid arguments. Profits from this ranch, and money received upon its sale, were used by the Deitrichs to buy the two parcels here involved--the Hays Street property in San Leandro and the Fairview property in Hayward. Titles to these two parcels were taken in joint tenancy at the time of each purchase, and so remained at the time of Mrs. Deitrich's death.
The first parcel purchased was the Hays Street property, which was purchased in 1947. It should here be mentioned that the evidence shows that Mrs. Deitrich was the dominant spouse in this marriage, and handled the financial transactions of the parties.
Before the parcel was purchased defendant asked his wife how the deed was to be made out, to which she replied Defendant agreed. This property was a four-plex. The deposit receipt and the buyers' instructions provided that the property should be conveyed to them as 'husband and wife in joint tenancy.' The money for this property came from the joint bank account of the parties. This parcel is valued at $20,000, subject to a mortgage of about $4,600.
The parties lived on this property until they purchased the home or Fairview property in Hayward in 1949. This, too, was taken in joint tenancy. The real estate saleswoman who consummated the deal testified that she was directed by the Deitrichs to make the deed in joint tenancy, and when she started to explain the legal effect of such a deed she was interrupted by Mrs. Deitrich who said: 'That is all right; I know what joint tenancy is.' The deposit receipt was signed by both Deitrichs in her presence, and it and the buyers' instructions directed that the deed be taken in joint tenancy. This property was sold in September, 1950, for $14,000, subject to a balance owing of $5,600 and the money impounded to await the outcome of this lawsuit.
Defendant, on cross-examination, was asked about his understanding of joint tenancy. He testified that he understood the meaning of the term at the time the conveyances were made, such understanding being that: 'Joint tenancy is for the protection of both parties, and the survivor automatically inherits the other half.'
In September of 1950 Mrs. Deitrich was quite ill. Plaintiff had been taking care of her mother in the Fairview home. On the morning of September 17, 1950, plaintiff and defendant were preparing to arrange for hospital care for Mrs. Deitrich when an important conversation took place between plaintiff and Mr. and Mrs. Deitrich. Mrs. Deitrich, according to plaintiff, stated: 'George, if anything happens to me I would like, I think--I would like that one-third of all the property we have--one-third would go to Edna, one-third to Sue and one-third to you.' Defendant replied: 'I think that is all right.' Mr. Deitrich denied that any conversation took place before the wills were executed.
After the plaintiff and defendant came back from making arrangements at the hospital Mrs. Deitrich asked for a pencil and stationery, stating that she wanted to draft a will. These were brought to her and she was left alone for over an hour. Then a conversation took place in the bedroom. Present, besides Mrs. Deitrich, were her husband, the plaintiff, and a notary public who had arrived to supervise the execution of the deed to the Fairview property. Plaintiff testified that Mrs. Deitrich had her, and then defendant, read the olographic will she had prepared; that she then asked them if its provisions were all right; that plaintiff asked her mother about provision for the grandchildren, and that Mrs. Deitrich stated that she would trust her daughters to take care of them. Defendant admitted that he glanced over the will and stated that it was 'O.K.' Plaintiff then testified that her mother than told defendant he should make a will and gave him a pencil and piece of paper; that defendant sat baside the bed and wrote out his will and handed it to his wife; that she read it and handed both wills to plaintiff and directed her to 'file' them. Defendant corroborated this portion of plaintiff's testimony, stating that when his wife asked him to make a will he replied: 'If it will please you, yes.'
Both wills were admitted into evidence, over objection, counsel for plaintiff stating that they were not being offered as joint wills or as evidence of any written agreement between the parties. Mrs. Deitrich's will has been admitted to probate, and plaintiff appointed executrix.
The olographic will of Mrs. Deitrich reads as follows:
'Sun. Sept. 17-1950
'This is my last will and testimony.
'I hereby bequieth my share of all community property to my 2 daughters. Edna C. Edwards and Sue Callie Nelson to be divided equally. Sue's share to purchase a home for her and boys Personal things to do with as they like.
'I appoint Edna Edwards as the administor.
/a/ Della Deitrich'
The unprobated olographic will of defendant reads as follows:
'Sept 17-50.
'This is my last Will
'I hear by Authorize my Wife Della Deitrich sole heir to all my Estate
'Or her 2 Daughters
'Mrs. Edna Edwards
'Mrs. Sue Nelson.
To be Divided Equally}
Geo H Deitrich'
Plaintiff, on cross-examination, testified that when her mother handed her the two wills, she stated: 'I want my share of my property--my share of our property to go to my--to you and to your sister, Sue.'
A cousin of plaintiff who was in the house that day testified that when defendant came out of his wife's room he stated that they had just made wills. He was asked how he had made his. He stated that his wife had left her 'share' to the 'girls,' and 'What the hell, when I am gone the girls can...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lucia v. Commissioner, Docket No. 1892-87.
...v. Commissioner [60-1 USTC ¶ 11,945], 278 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1960), affg. [Dec. 22,951], 30 T.C. 125 (1958); Edwards v. Deitrich, 118 Cal. App. 2d 254, 257 P.2d 750 (1953).10 Although it is not essential to show an express oral agreement, persuasive evidence of the parties' intent to c......
-
Yang v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Young)
...the presumption raised by the form of deed by which such property was acquired by husband and wife. Edwards v. Dietrich, 118 Cal.App.2d 254, 257 P.2d 750, 754 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App.1953). Petitioner primarily relies upon Yang's testimony. In her written statement, Yang stated that she and decede......
-
Bordenave v. United States, Civ. No. 7344.
...of the joint tenancy form at the time of participation or thereafter (Socol v. King, supra; Watson v. Peyton, supra; Edwards v. Dietrich, 118 Cal.App.2d 254, 257 P. 2d 750; Schindler v. Schindler, supra; Brazil v. Brazil, supra; but cf.: Wood v. Wood, 81 Cal.App.2d 729, 185 P.2d 53 facts no......
-
Pearce v. Briggs
...to the other spouse at the time of the conveyance.’ ( Levine, supra , at p. 705 , emphasis in original; see also Edwards v. Deitrich (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 254, 260-262 [[fact] that one party expresses intent in will to convert character of property does not rebut presumption raised by form ......