Legal Opinion

Andre Flowers v. Dancy

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 10, 2012No. C064815PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DUARTE, J.

The “unclean hands” doctrine is often invoked but rarely applicable. We publish this case because it illustrates a proper application of that doctrine—and Civil Code section 3543 (section 3543), a related maxim of jurisprudence—to preclude a party from attacking an admittedly forged deed.

Augustus Collins and Elijah Flowers were brothers-in-law who jointly owned a house.1 Elijah’s son Joseph Flowers (not a party herein) had once been on the title to the house, and after Elijah and Augustus died, he apparently forged their signatures on a deed purporting to transfer the house…

2Cases cited51 opinions

  1. D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  2. Foreman & Clark Corp. v. FallonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. In Re Marriage of ArceneauxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  4. City of Sacramento v. DrewCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  5. Century 21 Deep South Prop., Ltd. v. CorsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Aguayo v. AmaroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  2. Cal. Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Downs CA3California Court of Appeal · 2020
  3. Estate of Trikha CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2020
  4. Haddada v. San Diego Financial Services CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. Haq v. Khatib CA2/8California Court of Appeal · 2015

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