230 Cal. App. 4th 1128
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2007 Perry quitclaimed the Riverside house to Teegarden, who prepared the deed and listed Perry individually with a one-dollar consideration.
- Teegarden later claimed additional consideration: about $100,000 in improvements, $45,000 equity in her Sun City house, and ongoing care services.
- Jenkins, Perry’s stepdaughter and trustee of his trust, sought to void the transfer as a donative transfer under former Probate Code section 21350, among other remedies.
- The trial court held the quitclaim was not a donative transfer due to good consideration and reformed the deed to fix grantor capacity and description.
- The appellate court held former section 21350 still governs pre-2011 instruments and defined donative transfer as inadequate consideration, even if the transferee provided some consideration.
- The quitclaim was determined to be a donative transfer as a matter of law, making it invalid; remand for reformation was not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What constitutes a donative transfer under former 21350? | Jenkins asserts donative transfer includes inadequate consideration. | Teegarden argues adequate consideration defeats donative transfer. | Donative transfer includes inadequate consideration even with some consideration. |
| Does repeal of former 21350 affect pre-2011 instruments? | Repeal does not erase pre-2011 rights; old law governs. | New law governs all transfers post-enactment. | Old law governs instruments executed before 2011; Jenkins's claims survive repeal. |
| Was the quitclaim a donative transfer as a matter of law given the facts? | Evidence shows no adequate consideration under the standard. | Teegarden provided some consideration and may have intended a value transfer. | The quitclaim was a donative transfer as a matter of law; invalid. |
| Can evidence about Teegarden's testimony on lack of undue influence be used to prove lack of donative transfer? | Drafter evidence cannot prove non-donation; conflict with donative transfer rule. | Testimony relevant to whether the transfer was donative and whether undue influence existed. | Testimony was relevant; it did not defeat donative transfer under the applicable statute. |
| Was the statute of limitations properly raised and applied? | Limitation defenses were timely raised and should be considered. | Limitations not timely pleaded; waiver applies. | Limitations were not properly raised; trial court did not rule on it, and reversal preserved issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc., 203 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th, 2012) (statutory repeal doctrine and savings considerations)
- Sharabianlou v. Karp, 181 Cal.App.4th 1133 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd, 2010) (restitution on reversal and appellate remedy)
- Meyer v. Benko, 55 Cal.App.3d 937 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd, 1976) (adequacy of consideration standard for specific performance)
- Paratore v. Perry, 239 Cal.App.2d 384 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd, 1966) (adequacy of consideration for transfer of property)