Court Opinion

ID: 7050567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 06:59:39.589415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:11:43.384599
License: Public Domain

Separate Opinion.
Elliott, J.
— I concur in the conclusion that the cross-complaint is bad, but I do not fully assent to some of the propositions stated by the court, nor to all of the reasoning of the opinion. In my judgment an heir apparent may convey an estate in expectancy, but, in order to enforce the conveyance, the purchaser must show good faith, and that he paid the fair value of the property conveyed. It is not enough to show that he paid the value of the estate considered as an estate in expectancy, but he must show that he paid the value of the property without reference to the uncertainty" of the estate ever vesting. In other words, he must show that he paid the full value of the property, estimated as if the estate were absolute and fully vested, and without regard to any hazard resulting from the uncertain nature of the expectant estate. It is the value of the property and not the value of the expectant estate which the purchaser must pay. I think, too, that this rule applies where there is a warranty deed, or where the estate conveyed is specifically described, but that it does not apply where there is nothing more than a mere quitclaim deed.
It seems to me that the requirement of the law that the full value of the property shall be paid is a check so full and strong as to prevent fraud, and that an heir who secures the full worth of the property, valued as an absolute and vested estate, can not avoid his conveyance, made when he was an heir presumptive.