Appellant wife challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California) in her suit for the dissolution of her marriage to appellee husband, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that the marital home was appellee’s separate property by virtue of a quitclaim deed executed by appellant that conveyed her interest in the property to appellee.
Table of Contents
Overview
Appellant wife and appellee husband jointly owned their marital home, which had been owned by appellee prior to the marriage. When the marriage began to deteriorate, appellee asked appellant to sign a quitclaim deed returning ownership of the residence to him. Appellant executed a quitclaim deed, and filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The trial court deemed the residence to be appellee’s separate property by virtue of the quitclaim deed and concluded that appellant failed to meet the clear and convincing burden of proof under Cal. Evid. Code § 662 to establish undue influence sufficient to set aside the deed. Appellant sought review. In reversing and remanding with instructions to set aside the quitclaim deed, the appellate court concluded that application of Cal. Evid. Code § 662 was improper when it conflicted with the presumption emanating from Cal. Fam. Code § 721(b), under which a presumption of undue influence arose in an interspousal transaction where one spouse received greater benefit. Appellee had the initial burden to rebut the presumption that he gained an advantage in violation of the parties’ confidential relationship.
Outcome
The judgment of the trial court was reversed and the matter remanded with instructions to set aside the quit claim deed, as appellee husband bore the initial burden to rebut the presumption of undue influence that arose from the interspousal transaction wherein he received a greater benefit. The trial court erred in imposing the initial burden on appellant wife to rebut the validity of appellee’s title.
Procedural Posture
The class action attorneys California were advocating for the party litigant in presenting evidence and submitting briefs. Plaintiff consumer appealed the San Francisco Superior Court’s (California) dismissal of his class action suit against defendant automobile rental company alleging that defendant’s fuel service charge was excessive and punitive and its rental agreement was unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent within the meaning of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.
Overview
Plaintiff consumer filed a class action complaint under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 seeking damages and injunctive relief against defendant automobile rental company alleging that defendant’s fuel charges were excessive and punitive and its rental agreement was unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent. Defendant demurred on grounds that plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the action with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed. The court found that the fuel charges were avoidable and therefore lawful. This provision provided defendant a safe harbor as to the charge’s lack of impropriety. However, a question of fact existed as to whether a reasonable customer would glean the rental agreement’s fuel charge in the event he rejected the fuel purchase option. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of dismissal as to the latter claim and remanded the matter to the trial court.
Outcome
The court reinstated plaintiff’s case as to his claim that defendant unfairly and fraudulently concealed or obscured the fuel service charge in its rental agreement because this claim was one which properly stated a cause of action.
