Court Opinion

ID: 9545719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:18:14.570599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:25.962801
License: Public Domain

KAUFMAN, P. J.
I dissent. The main question here involved is whether section 683 of the Civil" Code as it existed in 1948 prohibited the creation of joint tenancy estates except as specified, as contended by the respondent, or whether the Legislature intended to permit additional ways of creating joint tenancy estates, as contended for by the appellant. I think that it is clear that a joint tenancy interest must be created in accordance with the terms and language of section 683 of the Civil Code. (Dalton v. Keers, 213 Cal. 204 at 207 [2 P.2d 355]; Estate of Dean, 68 Cal.App.2d 86 [155 P.2d *330901].) Section 683 of the Civil Code has abrogated the common law on the subject. A statute providing a mode of divesting title to property is strictly construed and followed. (23 Cal.Jur., Statutes, § 177, p. 800.) Under this view a joint tenancy may be created only in the precise manner set forth in the statute. Accordingly, as was done here, a conveyance from three tenants in common to two of them, or from a husband and wife to one of them and another, is not a “conveyance to themselves and others” within the language of the statute.
The 1955 amendment to section 683 of the Civil Code supports this view. This amendment expressly permitted the creation of a joint tenancy by a single transfer from tenants in common or joint tenants to less than all of them or to less than all of them and others, which was not permissible under the section as it existed prior to the 1955 amendment.
Here the 1948 deed did not comply with the provisions of section 683 of the Civil Code, hence no joint tenancy was created.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 22, 1959.