S. Victoria Wells - Page 12

                                       - 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