Marriage of Espinoza

Filed 7/20/06 Marriage of Espinoza CA2/3

Opinion following rehearing

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Margaret Bernal, Judge. Judgment is reversed and remanded.

Gronemeier & Associates, Dale L. Gronemeier and Elbie J. Hickambottom for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Fred L. Valentine, Jr. for Defendant and Respondent.

______________________________________________

By grant deed dated July 30, 1993, a father, Serafin Espinoza (Serafin), his daughter Judith aka Judy Espinoza Brown (Judy), and his son Frank Espinoza (Frank) transferred title to certain real property, which they held as joint tenants. The grantees were the son Frank and his wife Lori Espinoza (Lori), and they took the property as joint tenants. On that same day, Frank and Lori gave a deed of trust on the property to a financial institution from which they borrowed $85,000. Then, on August 26, 1993, Frank and Lori transferred title to that same property back to Frank and Judy as joint tenants, by means of a grant deed (the reconveyance deed). The reconveyance deed states that Frank's interest in that property is a separate property interest and that Judy's interest is also a separate property interest.

On March 20, 2002, Frank filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage to Lori, and Lori claimed a community property interest in the subject property. In pursuit of that claim, Lori filed a complaint against Judy, in the family law case, seeking to have the reconveyance deed cancelled and have title to the property quieted in the community,[1] or alternatively, a determination and declaration of the rights of Frank, Judy and Lori in the property. She asserted that she did not know what she was signing when she signed the reconveyance deed, and that Frank abused his fiduciary duty to her when he presented her with the reconveyance deed and told her to sign it.

Judy answered the complaint and challenged Lori's community property claim to the property, asserting that title to the property had been temporarily placed in the name of Frank and Lori, by means of the July 30 grant deed, for the sole purpose of enabling them to use the property to secure a loan for themselves, and thereafter, title was rightfully restored to Frank and Judy by means of the reconveyance deed from Frank and Lori.

Trial was had in the family law case to determine whether the community has an interest in the property. The trial court determined that (1) Lori did not sign the August 26 reconveyance deed with knowledge of the relevant facts respecting that deed, (2) when she signed the reconveyance deed, Frank and members of his family were exerting undue influence on her, and (3) therefore the deed must be canceled.

Noteworthy in the trial court's statement of decision is the finding that when father Serafin and his two children Frank and Judy signed the July 30 grant deed transferring legal title to Frank and Lori, they intended to make a gift to Lori and Frank of their interests in the property. The court drew that conclusion because the July 30 deed has the word â€