Skip to main content
· 7/27/1882

First National Bank v. Guerra

Citations

  • 61 Cal. 109
  • 1882 Cal. LEXIS 552

Syllabus

<p>Homestead—Adverse Possession—Statute of Limitations—Husband and Wife.—In April, 1861, the defendant, Concepcion de la Guerra, a married woman, filed a declaration of homestead upon a tract of land then inclosed and occupied by herself and husband, but which formed part of a large tract owned by her husband and others as tenants in common; and from that date occupied the land with her husband, claiming it as a homestead, until his death in January, 1878, and afterwards by herself until the beginning of this action. After the declaration of homestead, her husband and his co-tenants mortgaged the larger tract to one C., and the mortgage having been foreclosed, O. became the purchaser of the mortgaged premises and received his deed. Subsequently, in January, 1873, the interests of C. in the homestead premises, by proper mesne conveyances, became again vested in the husband of Concepcion and another of the original co-tenants, and was by them subsequently mortgaged, and under judgment of foreclosure sold and conveyed to the plaintiffs. In an action to quiet title, to which Concepcion was made a party, the court below found that the homestead premises had been held adversely by her from the date of the filing of the homestead.</p> <p>Held: The declaration of homestead filed by Concepcion was invalid because the premises were then held by tenancy in common. The finding as to adverse possession can not avail her. It was by virtue of her marital relations with her husband that she filed a declaration and has continued to claim the premises as a homestead. There is no pretense that her husband claimed adversely to any one, and she could not claim adversely to him, or those holding under him, so long as he remained as the head of the family, which he did until his death. The declaration of a homestead was not validated by the Act of March 19, 1868. There wa.3 no interest on which the provisions of the Act could operate—the interest of her husband having previously passed fr

Judges: McKee

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.