Shelton v. Vance
| Decision Date | 20 August 1951 |
| Citation | 234 P.2d 1012,106 Cal.App.2d 194 |
| Parties | SHELTON v. VANCE et al. VANCE v. SHELTON. Civ. 18187, 18188. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Feinfeld & Feinfeld and J. L. Feinfeld, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Deryl D. Shumway, Martin C. Colvin, Huntington Park, for respondent.
These are appeals from judgments in two actions. They were consolidated for trial below and are submitted here on one set of briefs. They involve a parcel of realty which is improved with a furnished rooming house. Number 18187 also involves the furniture and furnishings in the rooming house.
Theodore Shelton brought 18187 for partition of the realty and the furniture and furnishings, and for an accounting of rents from the rooming house.
Virginia Vance brought 18188 to quiet title to the realty.
The judgment in 18187 was that Theodore take nothing by his complaint. Judgment in 18188 quieted title to the realty in Virginia. Theodore appealed from both judgments.
Theodore and Virginia are brother and sister. They had a sister Blanche, now deceased. On August 20, 1938, Theodore, Virginia and Blanche acquired title to the realty as joint tenants. On October 12, 1945, Blanche signed, acknowledged, and delivered a deed conveying her interest in the realty to Virginia. This deed was not recorded. It was absolute on its face. In February or March, 1947, Virginia returned this deed to Blanche. On August 19, 1947, Theodore conveyed his interest in the realty to William Vance, who conveyed it to Virginia.
Blanche died on January 22, 1948. A one-third interest in the realty was inventoried as a part of her estate, and the decree of distribution purported to distribute it to Theodore and Virginia.
The court found and decreed that Virginia owns the realty in fee and that Theodore has no interest therein. Theodore's theory seems to be that the return by Virginia to Blanche of the deed theretofore delivered to Virginia by Blanche, in some fashion reconveyed a one-third interest in the property to Blanche, and that by reason of the decree of distribution in the estate of Blanche a one-sixth interest in the realty is vested in him. His claims as to the realty are untenable.
The deed from Blanche to Virginia severed the joint tenancy as between the interest acquired by Virginia from Blanche and the interests held by Virginia and Theodore in joint tenancy. Virginia was then a tenant in common as to a one-third interest, and a two-thirds interest was held by her and Theodore in joint tenancy. Reiss v. Reiss, 45 Cal.App.2d 740, 747, 114 P.2d 718; McConald v. Morley, 15 Cal.2d 409, 412, 101 P.2d 690, Anno. 129 A.L.R. 816. Where 'one of three or more joint tenants conveys his interest to a third person, the latter then becomes a tenant in common, instead of a joint tenant, with the other, although such others remain joint tenants as between themselves.' Hammond v. McArthur, 30 Cal.2d 512, 516, 183 P.2d 1, 3; In re Estate of Galletto, 75 Cal.App.2d 580, 585-588, 171 P.2d 152. When Theodore conveyed his interest to William Vance a joint tenancy no longer existed. Virginia, through her original holding of a one-third interest and by the conveyance from Blanche of a one-third interest, was the owner of two-thirds interest as a tenant in common with William Vance. Thereafter Virginia acquired the interest of William Vance and thus became the owner of the entire fee in the property.
The return of the deed by Virginia to Blanche did not have the effect of reconveying a one-third interest in the property to Blanche. It did not operate to reconvey title. Title could only be conveyed from Virginia to Blanche by a conveyance in writing. Civil Code, section 1058 provides: 'Redelivering a grant of real property to the grantor, or cancelling it, does not operate to retransfer the title.' See Sylvester v. Kirkpatrick, 79 Cal.App.2d 443, 450, 180 P.2d 36; Wachner v. Richardson, 14 Cal.App.2d 422, 428, 58 P.2d 714; Cranmer v. Porter, 41 Cal. 462, 466.
The decree of distribution in the estate of Blanche did not have the effect of establishing title to a one-third interest in Blanche at the date of her death, nor did Theodore acquire any interest therein by reason of the decree of distribution. While a decree of distribution is conclusive as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker's Estate, In re
...of Internal Revenue, 1954, 9 Cir., 219 F.2d 400; Klouda v. Pechousek, 1953, 414 Ill. 75, 110 N.E.2d 258, 261; Shelton v. Vance, 1951, 106 Cal.App.2d 194, 234 P.2d 1012, 1014; Shockley v. Halbig, 1950, 31 Del.Ch. 400, 75 A.2d 512, 513; Klajbor v. Klajbor, 1950, 406 Ill. 513, 94 N.E.2d 502, 5......
-
Lundy's Estate, In re
...304 P.2d 650; In re Griffin's Estate, Okl., 189 P.2d 933; Wilson v. Superior Court, 101 Cal.App.2d 592, 225 P.2d 1002; Shelton v. Vance, 106 Cal.App.2d 194, 234 P.2d 1012. However, this is not such a case. Here the issue is between the administratrix claiming as sole heir and appellants cla......
-
Roberts v. Roberts
...distribution is not res judicata of the interest of a party claiming as a stranger to the estate, it was stated in Shelton v. Vance, 106 Cal. App.2d 194, 234 P.2d 1012, 1014, as follows: "While a decree of distribution is conclusive as to the rights of heirs, legatees, or devisees, insofar ......
-
Carpenter v. Carpenter
... ... does not terminate the joint tenancy in the remaining ... interest.") ... For ... example, in Shelton v. Vance , 106 Cal.App. 2d 194, ... 234 P.2d 1012 (1951), it was held that the act of one of the ... three joint tenants in conveying her ... ...