Eggert v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co.

136 P.2d 822, 57 Cal. App. 2d 239, 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 171
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedFebruary 23, 1943
DocketCiv. 13706
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 136 P.2d 822 (Eggert v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eggert v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co., 136 P.2d 822, 57 Cal. App. 2d 239, 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 171 (Cal. Ct. App. 1943).

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

Plaintiffs brought the present action in a representative capacity for the purpose of impressing a trust upon assets or their derivatives alleged to have been transferred May 23, 1931, by Fidelity Savings and Loan Association (hereinafter referred to as Fidelity) to defendant, Pacific States Savings and Loan Association (hereinafter referred to as Pacific States or defendant).

Defendant appeals from the judgment in favor of the plaintiff insofar as it (a) holds that the transfer of property from Fidelity to Pacific States pursuant to the agreement of May 23, 1931, constituted a transfer in trust as distinguished from an absolute sale of the assets of Fidelity to Pacific States, (b) awards judgment on the accounting to holders of Pacific States Issued Fidelity participating certificates in the sum of $1,363,251.40, (c) impresses a lien upon the Fidelity transferred realty or realty derivatives within the State of Cali *242 fornia as security for the payment of the sum awarded, and (d) orders the appointment of a receiver in aid of the judgment in favor of the participating certificate holders.

The main issue raised by the pleadings in the present action was: Did the transfer of assets from Fidelity to Pacific States by the agreement of May 23, 1931, mentioned supra, constitute an outright sale of the assets of Fidelity to Pacific States or a transfer in trust for the benefit of Fidelity, its creditors, and certificate holders?

The trial court held in favor of plaintiff’s contention that the agreement constituted a transfer in trust for the benefit of Fidelity, its creditors, and certificate holders.

Defendant urges four propositions as reasons for the reversal of the judgment of the trial court. These propositions will be stated and answered hereunder seriatim.

First: There was no substantial evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding that the transfer of property from Fidelity to Pacific States pursuant to the agreement of May 23, 1931, constituted a transfer in trust as distinguished from an absolute sale of such property.

This proposition is untenable and is governed by the facts hereinafter set forth and these pertinent rules of law:

(1) The agreement of the parties to an instrument that it shall constitute a present sale and not be construed as a transfer of property in trust cannot change the true character of the agreement of the parties as disclosed by the instrument which evidences the transaction. (See Mahoney v. San Francisco, 201 Cal. 248, 258 [257 P. 49]; Stockton Savings & Loan Society v. Purvis, 112 Cal. 236, 239 [44 P. 561, 53 Am.St.Rep. 210]; San Joaquin L. & P. Corp. v. Costaloupes, 96 Cal.App. 322, 332 [274 P. 84]; also 1 Scott on Trusts (1939) 37, see. 2.8.)

(2) Whenever uncertainty arises concerning the meaning of a written agreement, the trial court will receive evidence as to what the parties themselves understood the agreement to mean and when they have acted upon that understanding and the trial court has made a finding that the agreement should be construed as acted upon by the parties, such finding will not be disturbed upon appeal (Thew v. Thew, 35 Cal.App.2d 691, 695 [96 P.2d 826]).

(3) To constitute a sale of property as distinguished from other agreements or transfers relative to property it is essential that in addition to other elements the absolute or *243 general property in the thing sold be transferred from the vendor to the vendee (Christensen v. Cram, 156 Cal. 633, 635 [105 P. 950]; Van Allen v. Francis, 123 Cal. 474, 479 [56 P. 339]; see. 1721 Civ. Code 1 ).

(4) A trust is any arrangement which exists whereby property is transferred with an intention that it be held and administered by the transferee (trustee) for the benefit of another (Estate of Shaw, 198 Cal. 352, 360 [246 P. 48]; Raffo v. Foltz, 106 Cal.App. 51, 55 [288 P. 884] ; 4 Am.Jur. (1936) 357, sec. 39; 2 R.C.L. (1929) 664, sec. 20).

(5) The power of an appellate court in reviewing the evidence on appeal from a judgment on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support findings of fact begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence contradicted or uncontradicted which will support the questioned finding of fact (Raggio v. Mallory, 10 Cal. 2d 723, 725 [76 P.2d 660]; Estate of Winzeler, 42 Cal.App.2d 246, 248 [108 P.2d 720]).

The agreement of May 23, 1931, between the parties contained the following relevant provisions:

“Fifth: It is the intention of the parties hereto that title to all of said assets referred to the assets of Fidelity shall be, and the same is hereby, transferred to and vested in Pacific States, for and in consideration of the purchase price and other considerations hereinafter mentioned.”
“Twelfth: A. Pacific States (subject to the provisions of Paragraph Twentieth hereof) shall have charge of the sale of all Real Property (as hereinafter defined) and all other assets acquired by it from Fidelity and may sell the same at such prices and on such terms and conditions as in its sole discretion it may determine without any approval from Fidelity ; provided, that without the approval as to price and terms of sale of a representative of Fidelity appointed for the purpose, Pacific States will not (a) sell any notes or street im *244 provement bonds acquired from Fidelity for .a period of four (4) years from date hereof, (b) sell any Real Property (as hereinafter defined) for a period of four (4) years from the date hereof unless the annual quota of sales hereinafter set forth shall not be met, or (c) sell any other assets acquired from Fidelity hereunder for a period of two (2) years from the date hereof. ’ ’

"Nineteenth: 1. Pacific States hereby further agrees:

"(a) To furnish to Fidelity, at least quarterly, full, true and correct statements showing in detail, and in form satisfactory to Fidelity, the status of all assets transferred to Pacific States hereunder, together with such other statements and/or information as Fidelity may require in order to maintain its books of account, to determine the status of the liquidation of said assets, and generally to inform itself as to matters involving its rights under the terms of this agreement. . . . (Italics added.)

"5.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Paradise Irrigation Dist. v. Comm'n on State Mandates
238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 656 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2018)
Envtl. Law Found. v. State Water Res. Control Bd.
237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 393 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2018)
People v. Sosa
2016 COA 92 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2016)
Presta v. Tepper
179 Cal. App. 4th 909 (California Court of Appeal, 2009)
Strong v. State Board of Equalization
66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 657 (California Court of Appeal, 2007)
SACRAMENTO POLICE ASS'N v. City of Sacramento
54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 167 (California Court of Appeal, 2007)
Rieger v. Arnold
128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 295 (California Court of Appeal, 2002)
Lance Camper Manufacturing Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. of America
109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 515 (California Court of Appeal, 2001)
California Association for Safety Education v. Brown
30 Cal. App. 4th 1264 (California Court of Appeal, 1994)
Fisher v. City of Berkeley
693 P.2d 261 (California Supreme Court, 1984)
E. L. White, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach
579 P.2d 505 (California Supreme Court, 1978)
People v. Rodrigues
63 Cal. App. 3d 1 (California Court of Appeal, 1976)
People v. Rodrigues
63 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 1 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1976)
Great Western Savings & Loan Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles
31 Cal. App. 3d 403 (California Court of Appeal, 1973)
Short Stop, Inc. v. Fielder
17 Cal. App. 3d 435 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)
Denver US Nat. Bank v. People Ex Rel. Dunbar
480 P.2d 849 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 P.2d 822, 57 Cal. App. 2d 239, 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eggert-v-pacific-states-savings-loan-co-calctapp-1943.