Calton v. Calton
Filed 7/31/06 Calton v. Calton CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| DONALD T. CALTON et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-Defendants and Appellants, v. DARCY C. CALTON, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Appellant. | E038788 (Super.Ct.No. SCVSS116152) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher J. Warner, Judge. Affirmed.
Maynard J. Klein for Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Appellant, Darcy C. Calton.
Wilcox & Peirano and Jean C. Wilcox for Plaintiffs, Cross-Defendants and Appellants Donald T. Calton and Diana L. May.
The parties to this appeal all claim that the trial court's judgment, filed June 23, 2005, concerning their dispute over title to several parcels of real property contains reversible error. Defendant, cross-complainant and appellant Darcy C. Calton argues that the trial court erred when it quieted title in four parcels of real property in Donald's name on the grounds that (1) there was no evidence that Donald intended to convey an immediate interest in the properties to Darcy and (2) Darcy did not rebut the presumption of undue influence. Plaintiffs, cross-defendants and appellants Donald T. Calton[1] and Diana L. May (May, collectively Plaintiffs) assert that the trial court erred when it refused to rescind the deed to a parcel of property titled in their names as well as Darcy's, instead finding that Darcy had a one-third interest in that parcel. They claim the evidence demonstrated that Darcy procured his interest in the property by fraudulent means. Finding substantial evidence supports the judgment of the trial court, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On July 9, 2004, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint asserting seven causes of action concerning a dispute over title to five parcels of real property as well as items of personal property that are not the subject of this appeal. The first, second and third causes of action for promissory fraud, declaratory relief, and to quiet title concerned a parcel located at 256 W. Highland Avenue in the city of San Bernardino (pawn shop property). Plaintiffs alleged that they purchased the property on August 16, 2001, in order to operate a pawn shop business. On and prior to that date, Darcy, Donald's son, had promised each of them that if they would place his name on the title to the property he would either pay one-third of the mortgage and property taxes due on the property or would supply all labor and materials needed to improve, maintain and repair the property so Plaintiffs could operate their pawn shop. Plaintiffs agreed and Darcy's name was placed on the title. They alleged that Darcy made his promise without any intent to perform and that he did not perform his promise. Consequently, they sought modification of the deed to remove Darcy's name as a co-tenant, as well as damages equal to one-third the value of the pawn shop property.
The fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action, also for promissory fraud, declaratory relief and to quiet title, concerned four parcels of real property located in San Bernardino and Victorville (the four parcels). Donald, then age 73, claimed that in February and March of 2003, he was facing heart surgery and was fearful and uncertain over the outcome, which made him vulnerable. Days before the surgery, Darcy demanded that Donald sign grant deeds on each of the four parcels, which he owned in his name alone, adding Darcy as a joint tenant. Donald further alleged that Darcy promised that if Donald survived the surgery, Darcy would immediately transfer title back to Donald. Donald signed the grant deeds, which he did not read, not realizing that one pertained to a property in which May had a beneficial interest. Donald survived his surgery and Darcy refused to reconvey the titles back to Donald alone. Donald alleged that Darcy never intended to honor his promise to reconvey the titles back to him and sought damages for the fraud as well as a judgment quieting title in the four parcels in him alone, by cancellation of the four grant deeds. The first amended complaint further alleged that Plaintiffs had filed declarations severing the joint tenancies to all five of the disputed parcels.
On August 4, 2004, Darcy filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs alleging five causes of action by which he sought a judgment determining his co-ownership of and ordering the partition and sale of each of the five disputed parcels, with the net proceeds to be divided among the parties according to their respective interests.
The action proceeded to trial on March 28 and 29, 2005, after which the parties submitted closing briefs and the court issued a tentative decision. The trial court found that Darcy had contributed both $8,000 and available time on weekends through at least March 1, 2003, to the purchase and operation of the pawn shop property, though his activities shifted from the pawn shop operation to operation of one of the properties involved in the four parcel dispute â€
