- 12 -
issuance of and the language contained within the deed was for
the purpose of and did cause the transfer of ownership in the
Paddock Lane property.7
Petitioner additionally argues that there was no intent to
transmute the Paddock Lane property into petitioner's sole
property. Under California law, we only consider the face of a
written instrument to determine whether the parties intended to
transmute property. Extrinsic evidence is to be disregarded.
"it is well settled that where a statute requires the
formality of a writing for the creation of an interest
in property, it must contain words indicating an intent
to transfer such interest, and in the absence of words
which could be interpreted to show such intent, no
parol evidence will be admitted." [In re Estate of
MacDonald, 794 P.2d at 918 (quoting California Trust
Co. v. Bennett, 204 P.2d 324, 327 (Cal. 1949)).]
Within the four corners of the deed, we do not find any
conditional language regarding delivery of the deed or transfer
of the property. Hence, we do not find persuasive petitioner's
argument in that regard.
Petitioner's argument that she had no intention of assuming
sole ownership does not reconcile with the recording of the deed
on her behalf. She wanted "control" of the property so it could
be sold without interference from her ex-husband. The settlement
of marital property dated June 12, 1991, is premised on the fact
7 Petitioner was represented by two attorneys when Mr. Wells
quitclaimed his interest in the Paddock Lane property and when
the deed was filed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011