Reuter v. Macal

Facts: The owner of real estate granted a one-half fee interest in the property to a person in exchange for a promise of marriage. The person took possession with the owner, but they never married and later separated while continuing to live in the property. The owner filed a quiet title action to recover title to the property.

Claim: The owner claims the person who received the property interest the owner conveyed is not entitled to retain that interest since the owner received nothing of value in exchange.

Counterclaim: The person who received the property interest claims they are entitled to retain their interest since the statute of limitations barring the owner’s quiet title action had expired as it began to run when their relationship ended.

Holding: A California court of appeals holds the owner is entitled to sole ownership of the property due to a failure of consideration for the interest conveyed since the statute of limitations on a quiet title action does not begin to run while the person whose interest sought to be voided remains in possession of the property. [Reuter v. Macal (November 18th, 2020)__CA6th__]

Read the case text here.