Tognazzini v. Tognazzini

Decision Date02 June 1954
Citation125 Cal.App.2d 679,271 P.2d 77
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesTOGNAZZINI et al. v. TOGNAZZINI et al. Civ. 19993.

Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, San Francisco, for appellants.

Twitchell & Rice and T. A. Twitchell, Santa Maria, Overton, Lyman, Prince & Vermille and Donald H. Ford, Los Angeles, for respondents.

VALLEE, Justice.

Appeal by plaintiffs from an adverse judgment in a suit to impress a constructive trust on, and for an accounting of profits from, an undivided one-ninth interest in Los Alamos ranch in Santa Barbara county, legal title to which is in defendants.

The basis of the suit is that in the year 1913 defendant Valerio Tognazzini, while acting as guardian of the estates of plaintiffs, who were then minors, allegedly was guilty of a breach of trust of self-dealing and failure to make full disclosure in the partition of several family realty holdings, pusuant to which Valerio received an undivided one-ninth interest in Los Alamos ranch which had been held as part of the guardianship estates.

Antonio and Maddalena Tognazzini were the parents of Valerio Tagnazzini, Virgil Tognazzini, and Clelia Hansen. Virgil and Ida Tognazzini were the parents of plaintiffs Lionel and Ellid Tognazzini.

Antonio died in 1906 the owner of three ranches; Los Alamos and Casmalia in the Santa Maria area of Santa Barbara county, and Cayucos in San Luis Obispo county. Maddalena inherited in undivided half interest and Valerio, Virgil, and Clelia each an undivided one-sixth interest in each of the ranches.

Virgil died in 1908 and his one-sixth interest descended in equal shares to Ida and plaintiffs Lionel and Ellid. Plaintiffs each then owned an undivided one-eighteenth interest in each of the three ranches. In December 1909 Valerio, with the consent of Ida, was appointed guardian of the estates of Lionel and Ellid. Ida and plaintiffs were residing in Switzerland at the time. Among the assets of the guardianship estate was plaintiffs' undivided one-ninth interest in the three ranches. Ida and plaintiffs returned to California in 1912.

About August 1912 Ida and Clelia came to the conclusion that a partition of the ranches should be effected to the end that Valerio should own one ranch, Clelia another, and Ida and plaintiffs the third. At this time Maddalena owned an undivided half interest in each ranch, Valerio and Clelia each an undivided one-sixth, and Ida and plaintiffs each an undivided one-eighteenth. Ida and Clelia engaged an attorney, Emilio Lastreto; Valerio was notified of the desire to partition; and a meeting was arranged. Ida and Clelia designated appraisers. The appraisers appraised the property at, and the parties agreed on a valuation of, $90,000 for Los Alamos, $100,000 for Casmalia, and $55,000 for Cayucos. It was decided that Ida and plaintiffs should take Cayucos because its lower valuation would result in their receiving cash of which they were in need and because they did not have the cash to take either of the higher priced ranches. Valerio and Clelia tossed a coin twice to decide who would take Los Alamos and who Casmalia. If heads came on the first toss Clelia was to take Casmalia, if tails came Valerio was to take it. Heads came but Clelia was undecided; the coin was tossed again; it came heads again and Clelia took Casmalia. That left Valerio with Los Alamos.

On February 13, 1913, a written contract drawn by Lastreto, embodying the terms of the partition, was signed by Valerio in his individual capacity and as guardian of the estates of plaintiffs, by Ida in her individual capacity and as mother of plaintiffs, and by Clelia. The contract provided that it should not be binding on plaintiffs until it should have been approved by the court.

On March 10, 1913, Valerio tendered to the court his resignation as guardian of the estates of plaintiffs. Ida petitioned for appointment, and in her petition stated: '[I]n view of the fact that it is contemplated between Maddalena Tognazzini, Mrs. Clelia Muscio (nee Tognazzini), Valerio Tognazzini, and the said minors, Lionel Tognazzini and Ellid Tognazzini, and your petitioner, Ida Tognazzini, to have a partition of the property belonging to themselves in common and in different proportions; and that in said partition proceedings, your petitioner herein desires to represent and to act for her said children, said minors, and that Valerio Tognazzini, the said guardian of the persons and estates of said minors has, at the request of petitioner herein, tendered his resignation as such guardian and petitioned the Honorable Superior Court to accept his said resignation and to appoint your petitioner, Ida Tognazzini, such guardian instead and in lieu of Valerio Tognazzini.' On March 31, 1913, Valerio's resignation was accepted and Ida was appointed.

The contract was not presented to the court for approval. Instead, Ida, as guardian of the estates of plaintiffs, petitioned the court in the guardianship proceeding for an order to sell the interests of plaintiffs in the three ranches and to use the proceeds to purchase the interests of the other parties in Cayucos and to invest in securities. On June 13, 1913, an order was duly and regularly made granting the petition and ordering the interests sold. The sale was advertised, had, and duly and regularly confirmed. The interests of plaintiffs in Los Alamos and Casmalia were exchanged for corresponding interests in Cayucos plus cash; deeds were exchanged; and Maddalena conveyed her undivided half interest in each ranch. The result was that Valerio became sole owner of Los Alamos, Clelia sole owner of Casmalia, and Ida and plaintiffs sole owners of Cayucos.

In 1920 Cayucos was sold for $90,000. About 1935 Valerio conveyed to each of his children, defendants Elton Tognazzini and Aileen Tognazzini Pauley, without consideration, an undivided one-fourth interest in the minerals in and under a part of Los Alamos. In 1937 Valerio entered into a contract with his wife, defendant Tillie Tognazzini, by which she agreed to buy an undivided one-fourth interest in the minerals in and under a part of Los Alamos for $120,000. She has paid about $80,000 toward the purchase price.

This suit was commenced on September 20, 1950. The property involved is the one-ninth interest in Los Alamos which was owned by plaintiffs and which in 1913 was conveyed by Ida, as guardian of the estates of plaintiffs, to Valerio. The alleged fraud is predicated on the claim that Valerio, occupying a fiduciary relation to plaintiffs as guardian of their estates, failed to disclose to the court in the guardianship proceedings material facts within his knowledge regarding the oil potentialities of Los Alamos, thereby obtaining an unfair advantage over his wards.

The court found there was no fraud and that the suit was barred by the provisions of section 338 subd. 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs assert the findings are unsupported by the evidence. We have concluded that the finding that the suit is barred is supported by the evidence.

Thirty-seven years elapsed between the partition in 1913 and the filing of this suit. Lionel attained the age of majority in 1923; Ellid in 1924.

On June 1, 1909, Ida granted an oil company an option for two and a half years to purchase her interest in Los Alamos; and Maddalena, Valerio, and Clelia jointly granted the same oil company an option to purchase their interests. The price fixed in the options was $250 an acre. Los Alamos contained about 4000 acres. It had been appraised in 1908, on the death of Ida's husband, at $30,000, or about $7.50 an acre. The options were not exercised. Ida testified she knew at the time the option was given that three oil companies had producing wells in the Santa Maria area.

Ida and plaintiffs were in Switzerland from June 1909 until August 1912. During that time Valerio and Clelia's then husband managed the ranches. On September 14, 1910, Ida wrote to Valerio acknowledging she had received a long letter from him and that she was 'happy to hear that the Brookshire has good prospects also the wells in our ranches.' On April 23, 1911, she wrote to Valerio saying, 'Victor Pezzoni tells me that they are digging for oil in Casmalia; how are they doing? I always wait to hear of a big gusher but nothing ever comes.' On August 7, 1911, she wrote Valerio asking, '[D]id you come to anything with that oil well?' Presumably her letter was answered.

After Ida returned from Switzerland she lived in San Francisco. Before the partition discussions began Ida frequently visited with Maddalena and Clelia; she saw Valerio but once, in her brother's office for the purpose of receiving money. At this meeting which was before anyone had suggested a division of the ranches, Valerio asked Ida if she would like to be guardian. She replied that it was agreeable to her. Ida suggested the partition because 'She felt he [Valerio] was just not quite honest with her.'

On February 19, 1913, the date of the contract for partition, an oil well, Dome No. 2, was being drilled on Los Alamos. The well was completed about April 18, 1913, but it did not at any time produce oil in paying quantities and it was later abandoned. When partition was first discussed and before any ranches were selected Valerio said to Ida and Clelia, 'Do not divide the mineral rights--keep them undivided.' He reported to them at that time that the Dome well was drilling but that its outcome was uncertain. On objection by Ida and Clelia, Valerio agreed to divide the entire interests. During the negotiations Ida told Lastreto they always had hopes of oil in the family. Ida, Valerio, and Clelia knew that there was prospecting for oil on Casmalia at the date of the contract. The evidence supports the conclusion that Ida knew at the time she was appointed guardian and at the time she petitioned the court to take Cayucos for herself and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Oakes v. McCarthy Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 7, 1968
    ...point, Jefferson v. J. E. French Co. (1960) 54 Cal.2d 717, at 719--720, 7 Cal.Rptr. 899, 355 P.2d 643); Tognazzini v. Tognazzini (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 679, 687, 271 P.2d 77.) And the ultimate issue as to whether the cause of action for negligence was barred by the statute of limitations bec......
  • Stevens v. Marco
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 1956
    ...was and why it was not discovered sooner. Hobert v. Hobart Est. Co., 26 Cal.2d 412, 437-438, 159 P.2d 958; Tognazzini v. Tognazzini, 125 Cal.App.2d 679, 687, 271 P.2d 77; Mortimer v. Loynes, 74 Cal.App.2d 160, 171, 168 P.2d 481. The fact that an investigation would have revealed the falsity......
  • Mills v. Mills
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 1956
    ...discovered, the circumstances of the discovery, what the discovery was, and why it was not discovered sooner. Tognazzini v. Tognazzini, 125 Cal.App.2d 679, 686-687, 271 P.2d 77. When the facts are susceptible to opposing inferences, whether a party had notice of circumstances sufficient to ......
  • In re Wingspread Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 18, 1988
    ...any impropriety, see Mintiner v. Michigan Nat\'Bank, 117 Mich.App. 633, 324 N.W.2d 110 (Mich.Ct.App.1982); Tognazzini v. Tognazzini, 125 Cal.App.2d 679, 271 P.2d 77, 85 (1954). The integrity of the sale is the issue to be addressed — not any general past conduct of a bidder in relation to o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT