Riverside employment lawyers

An action to adjudge the plaintiff the owner of realty and to cancel deeds executed by him to the defendant in consideration of a promise to marry, brought within a few months after the plaintiff learned that the defendant was not a single person but more than four years after the conveyances, was not barred by subd 4, as the action was based upon a constructive trust and limitations did not begin to run until after repudiation of the trust, with knowledge thereof brought home to the plaintiff. Cole v. Manning (CalifLaw July 29, 1926), 79 CalifLaw 55, 248 P. 1065, 1926 CalifLawCALIFLAW 20.Nakase law office has best riverside employment lawyers in California.

Where the president and director of a corporation, acting through another, procured a judgment against the corporation, in order to acquire all its property which he purchased on execution sale, such facts and various transfers gave all interested persons constructive notice of his wrongdoing, and an action to declare a trust on the property not brought within three years from such notice was barred. Bainbridge v. Stoner (Cal. Oct. 23, 1940), 16 Cal. 2d 423, 106 P.2d 423, 1940 Cal. CALIFLAW 320.

Where a grantee had succeeded in securing from a grantor a deed to property on the promise of paying for it, no payment was ever made but the two parties lived on the property together, and the grantee agreed to reconvey but did not do so, the statute of limitations did not commence to run on the grantor’s right to establish a trust in such property until the grantee repudiated the trust by demanding exclusive possession of the property. Strausburg v. Connor (CalifLaw Mar. 8, 1950), 96 CalifLaw 2d 398, 215 P.2d 509, 1950 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1387.

In actions to establish a constructive trust and quiet title to realty, a finding that one plaintiff and the other plaintiff’s predecessor in interest knew that defendant was claiming property as his own prior to time alleged in complaints is sustained by evidence that escrow instructions pertaining to sale of property, signed by one plaintiff and the other plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, contained provision that it was understood that purchaser was taking property subject to defendant’s tax claim thereon, and that in pleadings in other actions involving such property at that time it was alleged that present defendant had a three-fourths interest in the property. Metcalf v. Hecker (CalifLaw Sept. 29, 1954), 127 CalifLaw 2d 634, 274 P.2d 188, 1954 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1391.

Condemnees’ action in equitable relief, seeking imposition of a constructive trust on the part of the condemned property put up for sale, nine years later, as being surplus, and grounded on the state’s fraud in concealing a change in the intended use of the condemned land during the condemnation proceedings, allegedly not discovered until the surplus was declared, was barred by the three-year statute of limitations (CCP § 338), where the change in use was known to the condemnees’ agent within a month of the condemnation judgment and such knowledge was imputable to them, and where during the nine years the change of use was known to them by reason of the leasing of the acreage, amongst others, to themselves. Capron v. State (CalifLaw 4th Dist. Dec. 14, 1966), 247 CalifLaw 2d 212, 55 Cal. Rptr. 330, 1966 CalifLawCALIFLAW 958.