Defendant wife sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County (California), which entered a decree in favor of plaintiffs, a mother and father, quieted title to certain real property, and ordered the wife to quit and vacate the premises.
Overview: pros and cons of joint venture
The mother and father, the parents of the husband, entered into an agreement whereby they agreed to sell real property to the husband and wife for the sum of $ 7,750. They made a down payment of $ 920, and the balance was payable in monthly installments of not less than $ 50 per month. The husband and wife further agreed to pay all state, county, and city taxes assessed against the property. Subsequently, the wife commenced an action for divorce, at which time she and her small daughter, the mother and father's granddaughter, lived alone on the property. The mother and father later served a notice of default with demand for possession against the wife. The wife then returned a notice to them that stated the fact that she did not know the exact amount due because the husband was normally responsible for that, and she offered to tender that amount whatever it was in exchange for a deed. The lower court later entered a decree in favor of the mother and father. The court reversed the judgment, holding that the lower court erred by forfeiting the wife's interest without consideration of the equity principle, which would have allowed her to pay the arrearages owed.
The court reversed and remanded the judgment, which entered a decree in favor of the mother and father, quieted title to certain real property, and ordered the wife to quit and vacate the premises.