Siegel

Siegel v. Farrar

Good Law
120 Cal. App. 193·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 78·7 P.2d 319
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 26, 1932Docket No. 619.California1,177 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Barnard, J.

This is an action to quiet title. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: The plaintiffs are sisters and are the daughters of Anna Siegel. On April 26,1922, the plaintiffs acquired title by grant deed to a house and lot in the city of Anaheim. On November 28, 19.28, an action was instituted by Wilfred L. Farrar, doing business as Farrar’s Collection Service, against Anna Siegel, and in connection therewith, the interest of Anna Siegel in this real property was attached. Concerning this interest, the record shows that Anna Siegel testified that in 1924 her married daughter was very ill; that she told her she did not own anything and if she should die her husband could put her out of the house; and that the daughter replied: “We will make a contract.” She also testified, “I didn’t own the property. My daughters owned the property and they gave me the right to live there and we had it as a contract.” This is the only evidence in the record as to what interest Anna Siegel possessed in the property in question, or as to how it was acquired. However, both counsel state in their briefs that it has been subsequently decreed by a court that Anna Siegel had a life estate in the property.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.