205 Cal. App. 4th 1238
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Two brothers-in-law owned a house jointly; Joseph Flowers forged signatures to transfer it to McIntyre for no consideration.
- McIntyre deeded the house to Dancy; Wachovia loaned to Dancy based on a negligent title report.
- Andre Flowers, as administrator of Elijah and Augustus’s estates, filed a probate action to quiet title.
- Trial court found Andre had unclean hands and precluded him from attacking the forged deed; court left Dancy with title subject to Wachovia’s deed of trust.
- Court decision affirms, holding Andre’s conduct in connection with the title harmed others and justified the unclean hands defense; key reliance on § 3543 maxim and related equitable principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unclean hands barred Andre from challenging the forged deed | Andre sought to attack title despite his adverse conduct | Unclean hands doctrine applies due to Andre’s scheme and delays | Yes, unclean hands barred Andre |
| Whether Andre’s rental and other actions support unclean hands | Actions produced personal gain and clouded title | Actions connected to estates; not unrelated | Yes, supported by record |
| Whether § 3543 maxim independently supports denial of relief | Equity should favor innocent heirs | Heirs’ interests not sufficiently protected by relief | Yes, § 3543 maxim reinforces unclean hands denial |
| Whether any defendant had unclean hands to defeat Andre’s petition | Defendants had clean title reliance on counsel | Defendants’ reliance on title opinions and escrow actions was reasonable | No, defendants not shown to have unclean hands sufficient to defeat petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Merry v. Garibaldi, 48 Cal.App.2d 397 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1941) (unclean hands prevented relief when plaintiff concealed forgery to protect family interests)
- Crittenden v. McCloud, 106 Cal.App.2d 42 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1951) (unclean hands and § 3543 applied when failure to object to forgery harmed others)
- Bryce v. O’Brien, 5 Cal.2d 615 (Cal. 1936) (forged deeds can create unclean hands defenses in equity)
- Wurzl v. Holloway, 46 Cal.App.4th 1740 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (§ 3543 maxim applied where party contributed to loss via escrow issues)
- Wutzke v. Bill Reid Painting Service, Inc., 151 Cal.App.3d 36 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (forged/ineffectual title questions and related estoppel principles)