Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: Transfer of Property

No, once the deed is completed, signed before notary and handed to the other party, whether or not its recorded doesn't matter. The guest is complete unless there was some form of contingency. The only problem is that you say she had early form of Alzheimer's disease. If the members of the family who would have gotten the property under the Wellcome shall then she really didn't understand what she was doing the time can that person, come on now it's you instant it, may have something to worry about. It becomes a factual matter for a court, the judge or the jury to decide. But that is a costly matter also. Personally, I would need to hear additional facts and I have certain questions but I would think positively in the situation.I have been practicing law in this legal area for over 30 years and understand your problem well. I practice in the S.F. Bay Area and if you wish to contact me call at 925-945-6000. I

Re: Transfer of Property

All will depend upon the mental status of your aunt when she conveyed or transfered the property during her lifetime. A lawsuit could go either way. Unfortunately this would have been better accomplished by trust or a life estate because of the income tax advantages. It is too late for that now. You have to consider the nature and quality of the evidence that she was legally competent when she signed and delivered the deed.

Re: Transfer of Property

The two previous answers are essentially correct as far as they go. Maybe a little further explanation would help you understand the situation.

First, a will is considered an "ambulatory" document, and no one has any rights under it while the testatrix is alive. What they have is referred to by judges as a "mere expectancy." The making of a will isn't a promise to anyone. The maker can change it any time. No living person has heirs; heirs don't come into existence prior to death.

Next, when a will makes a gift of specific property to an heir, but the property isn't in the estate at the testatrix's death, the bequest is said to be "adeemed," meaning, in short, that it fails due to impossibility. The unlucky heir usually has no legal means to get other property from the estate and almost always has no right to pursue the property, whether it is in other hands or perhaps destroyed. This happens all the time.

("Testatrix" means a female will-maker; a male would be a "testator").

The other answers suggest the Minnesota relations might attack the transfer of the house on the ground of incompetence (of the family member), undue influence, or possibly fraud of some kind. This is indeed possible, and without knowing all the facts, I cannot suggest defenses or predict the outcome. However, courts are rather reluctant to find someone incompetent to handle their property affairs, especially if they are managing unassisted living or handling routine matters such as shopping and bill-paying without obvious problems.

As to undue influence, a family member "who had been there for her" might be capable of exerting so-called undue influence, but again just being available and helpful is not what this means; being a caregiver should probably be called "due influence."

The procedural formalities of the transfer of the house may also come under attack. However, an unrecorded deed is probably valid against anyone who is not a "bona fide purchaser" and heirs are not purchasers. There is also the fraud issue. If the house were transferred to the family member for fair value, there's little likelihood of a problem. If the transfer were a gift, a challenge is more likely, but if there are no facts showing any kind of fraud, a suit on that basis by the would-be "heirs" is equally unlikely to go anywhere.

In short, the transfer to the family member will probably stand up to challenge unless there is incompetence or wrongdoing. A challenge based on the will alone is unlikely to succeed.