Superior Court of Marin County

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff adopted child sought review of a decision from the Superior Court of Marin County (California), which entered a judgment for defendant natural children in an action to enforce an alleged contract for the division of property among the heirs of the child's adoptive parents.

Overview

The child was adopted by a couple under a contract by which they agreed to take the child into their home as their own child and heir. The child was raised by the adoptive parents. There was some estrangement between them, but the father remained supportive. When he died, he left her money in trust for her minor son. The adoptive mother left her $ 1000 when she died. The bulk of the substantial estate went to the adoptive parent's two natural children. The child alleged that she was entitled to one-third of the estate pursuant to an adoption contract. The trial court entered a judgment for the natural children. On appeal, the court upheld the judgment. While there was a dispute in the evidence, the contract that the child sought to prove was insufficient as a matter of law justify an award of a portion of the estate left by the adoptive parents. While they might have agreed to treat her as an heir, they were under no legal obligation to devise any portion of their property to their natural children, and they were under no legal obligation to do so in relation to the child in the absence of a contract that specifically provided for such a distribution.

Outcome: caci sexual harassment

The court affirmed the judgment.

Procedural Posture

Respondent vendor brought an action against appellant vendee to quiet title to a certain tract of land. The vendee filed a cross-complaint alleging a written contract of sale for the land with the purchase price paid in installments. The vendee prayed for specific performance of the agreement to convey. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) entered judgment in favor of the vendor, and the vendee sought review.

Overview

The contract provided that time was of the essence and that if the vendee failed to comply, the vendor was released from his obligation to convey, and that the vendee's contractual rights would be forfeited. The vendee was in arrears for over two years. When he made a small payment, the vendor advised that he had to pay the balance in arrears in a few days. Thereafter, the vendor declared a forfeiture. On appeal, the vendee claimed that the vendor waived his default by the acceptance of the one late payment. The court rejected this claim and upheld the lower court's decision. The court found that where time was of the essence and a vendee was in default, the acceptance of a payment with such knowledge ordinarily operated as a waiver of the default. However, the court further found that the vendor was not required to give definite and specific notice to the vendee of his intention to revive his right of forfeiture. Further, the court found that the vendor orally gave the vendee notice, and thus, revived his right of forfeiture. The court also held that the vendee could not make a tender and put the vendor in default, at a time when the vendee was in default of the contract.

Outcome

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment.

I'm Anne Tyner. I provide guest post service