Legal Opinion · Dissent

Vohs v. Williams

California Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 2002No. S095401Published

1Dissent

KENNARD, J., Dissenting.

Under California law, an interest in real property can be transferred only in writing. Ordinarily, the document transferring the interest must be signed by the donor, but a judicially created rule upholds conveyances signed by an “amanuensis”; that is, one who performs a “mechanical function” in signing the donor’s name.

In this case, a woman claiming to be an amanuensis signed her father’s name to a deed conveying a joint tenancy interest in her father’s house to herself. The majority holds that the transaction is valid. I disagree.

*679I

Civil Code section 1091 states: “An…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Wilson v. . Lewiston Mill Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
  2. Kadota Fig Ass'n of Producers v. Case-Swayne Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946
  3. Dunham v. HartmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
  4. Walker v. KeelingCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1942
  5. Happ Bros. v. Hunter Manufacturing & Commission Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1916

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API