## Facts

- Mrs. Holmes (plaintiff) brought a Los Angeles County action to quiet title to three parcels of real property, alleging they were her separate property and that the defendant had no interest.
- The defendant was the son of plaintiff’s deceased husband and claimed interests derived from the husband’s deeds and will.
- **Parcel 1:** A deed dated December 8, 1906, conveyed Parcel 1 to plaintiff and her husband as grantees.
- In January 1909, the husband executed a deed conveying his undivided one-half interest in Parcel 1 to the defendant for consideration.
- **Parcels 2 and 3:** These parcels were acquired during the marriage. The purchase money came from the spouses’ joint earnings (community funds), but the deeds vested record title in plaintiff’s name alone.
- The husband died in 1910. By will, he attempted to devise to the defendant whatever interest he had in Parcels 2 and 3.
- The trial court found for the defendant in substantial part, ruling that plaintiff and defendant each owned an undivided one-half interest in **all three** parcels, treating Parcels 2 and 3 as community property and treating plaintiff’s title as held in trust for the community.
- Plaintiff appealed from the quiet-title judgment on a bill of exceptions.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court correctly treated Parcel 1 as owned in equal undivided shares by the spouses (and thus transferable by the husband to the defendant as to his share) where the deed named both spouses as grantees and the husband later conveyed his one-half interest.
2. Whether Parcels 2 and 3, purchased during marriage with community earnings but deeded to plaintiff alone, were presumed plaintiff’s separate property under former Civil Code § 164, and whether the evidence was sufficient to treat them as community property subject to the husband’s testamentary transfer.

## Decision

- The court **affirmed** the judgment as to **Parcel 1**, concluding the evidence supported the finding that plaintiff and defendant held as tenants in common, each owning an undivided one-half interest, based on the deed placing title in both spouses and the husband’s later conveyance of his half to the defendant.
- The court **reversed** the judgment as to **Parcels 2 and 3**, holding the trial court erred in treating them as community property on this record.
- Because Parcels 2 and 3 were vested by written conveyance in the wife’s name, former Civil Code § 164 created a presumption they were her separate property.
- The fact that Parcels 2 and 3 were paid for from community earnings, without additional evidence showing a different intent at the time of acquisition, did not overcome the statutory presumption; therefore, the husband had no devisable one-half interest in those parcels for the defendant to take under the will.

## Legal Principles

- Under former Civil Code § 164, real property conveyed to a married woman by written instrument and vested in her name is presumed to be her separate property.
- Payment of the purchase price from community funds or the spouses’ joint earnings, standing alone, does not rebut the § 164 presumption arising from title in the wife’s name.
- Community funds or community interests may be given by a husband to his wife; taking title solely in the wife’s name is consistent with a gift absent proof of a contrary intent.
- When a deed conveys real property to both spouses, each takes an undivided interest consistent with the form of title, and a spouse may convey that undivided interest to a third party.

## Conclusion

Holmes v. Holmes held that the defendant-stepson validly acquired the husband’s undivided one-half interest in Parcel 1 because title was originally taken in both spouses and the husband conveyed his share, so the judgment was affirmed as to that parcel; but the court reversed as to Parcels 2 and 3 because deeds vesting title solely in the wife triggered the Civil Code § 164 presumption of separate property, and proof of purchase with community earnings alone did not show the husband retained a devisable one-half interest.


Holmes v. Holmes, 150 P. 793 (1915)