Dargie v. Patterson
176 Cal. 714, 169 P. 360 (1917)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A gift of community property made by one spouse without the other spouse's written consent is not wholly void, but is voidable by the non-consenting spouse after the gifting spouse's death to the extent of the non-consenting spouse's one-half interest.
Facts:
- William E. Dargie and the plaintiff were married from 1881 until Dargie's death in 1911.
- All property acquired during their marriage, including a parcel of land in Oakland, was community property.
- On October 20, 1910, William E. Dargie signed a deed conveying the Oakland property to Etta I. Patterson.
- This conveyance was a gift, made without any valuable consideration.
- The gift was made without the knowledge or written consent of Dargie's wife.
- William E. Dargie died on February 10, 1911.
- At the time of his death, Dargie's estate was worth over $500,000, while the gifted property was valued at no more than $100,000.
Procedural Posture:
- William Dargie's widow sued Etta I. Patterson in the trial court to invalidate the deed.
- Two executors of William Dargie's estate intervened, joining the widow's lawsuit.
- The trial court found the deed was delivered but concluded it was wholly void and that Patterson had no right, title, or interest in the property.
- A judgment was entered in favor of the widow, declaring the entire property belonged to the community estate.
- Etta I. Patterson, the defendant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
After a husband's death, may his surviving wife set aside in its entirety a gift of community property that he made without her consent, or is her right to recovery limited to one-half of the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Sloss, J.
No. A wife's right to set aside her deceased husband's unauthorized gift of community property is limited to recovering her one-half interest; the conveyance is not void in its entirety. The amendment to Civil Code section 172 renders such a gift voidable, not void, at the option of the non-consenting wife. The husband is bound by his own gift, as are his heirs and personal representatives. The wife's right is to protect her interest, which is one-half of the community property. To allow her to void the entire gift would improperly benefit the husband's estate, which is bound by his action. Therefore, the wife is entitled to claim her one-half interest in the specific property directly from the grantee, regardless of the value of the remaining estate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of a non-consenting spouse's remedy against an unauthorized gift of community property after the death of the gifting spouse. It establishes that such gifts are not a legal nullity but are merely voidable as to the aggrieved spouse's one-half share. This precedent balances the protection of the surviving spouse's vested community property rights with the principle that a person cannot revoke their own valid gift. The ruling prevents the non-consenting spouse from invalidating the entire transaction for the benefit of the gifting spouse's estate, thereby cementing the grantee's right to the gifting spouse's one-half interest.
