Vohs

Vohs v. Williams

Good Law
28 Cal. 4th 665
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 25, 2002No. S095401California6,365 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Moreno, J.

This matter involves a petition under the Probate Code seeking the return of real property to the deceased’s estate. Prior to his death, the deceased orally instructed his daughter to sign his name on a grant deed *669 that vested title to his residence in himself and her as joint tenants; she did so outside of his presence and he later orally ratified the conveyance. We granted review to decide whether the transfer was valid. As discussed herein, we conclude the transfer was valid.

I.

In 1978, Austin David Stephens (Austin) and his wife, Thelma, executed crossover wills, which provided that when they passed away all their real and personal property would be equally divided between their children, Lawrence Stephens (Lawrence) and Shirley Williams (Shirley).

In 1983, Thelma became seriously ill with cancer. Shirley drove her mother to every chemotherapy treatment and gave her around-the-clock care for five years. Shirley, who lived just two houses from her parents, installed an intercom linking their bedrooms so her mother could reach her at any time. At the same time, Shirley held two jobs. She worked in the daytime as a switchboard operator and in the evening as a…

Dissenting Opinion

Kennard, J.

Under California law, an interest in real property can be transferred only in writing. Ordinarily, the document transferring the interest must be signed by the donor, but a judicially created rule upholds conveyances signed by an “amanuensis”; that is, one who performs a “mechanical function” in signing the donor’s name.

In this case, a woman claiming to be an amanuensis signed her father’s name to a deed conveying a joint tenancy interest in her father’s house to herself. The majority holds that the transaction is valid. I disagree.

*679 I

Civil Code section 1091 states: “An estate in real property . . . can be transferred only by operation of law, or by an instrument in writing, subscribed by the party disposing of the same, or by his agent thereunto authorized by writing.” This provision is part of California’s statute of frauds, which is based on the Statute of Frauds enacted in England in 1677, and which also applies to other important transactions such as contracts not to be performed within the lifetime of the promisor (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. (a)(5)), agreements to lend amounts greater than $100,000 (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. (a)(7)), creation of a suretyship (Civ.…

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.