What is Required to Show Color of Title?
Color of title gives the appearance that someone holds title to a piece of property. (Thompson v. Dypvik (1985)174 Cal. App. 3d 329, 339.) The possessor of color of title has a written deed or instrument or judicial decree that seems to transfer good title. However, the transfer is somehow defective and is not actually effective in transferring title. (Packard v. Moss (1885) 68 Cal. 123, 126.) Just because a deed is void does not mean the possessor of color of title has no claim to the property. Instead, the color of title provides exactly that. It can allow someone to assert a right to property under a defective instrument as long as they can show they had a good faith belief the instrument was valid. For example, a deed that describes the land and purports to pass title between two people which is ultimately void or voidable, furnishes color of title on which the recipient of the deed can base a claim of adverse possession. (Id. at 130.)
The claimant must be in actual possession of the property to establish title under color of title. It does not require entire occupation of the property as long as the “title” is to the entire property. (Wheatley v. San Pedro, L.A. & S.L.R. Co. (1915) 169 Cal. 505, 517.) If the property is not occupied then it must have been substantially enclosed, cultivated, or improved. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 323.) This occupation applies only to the separate occupied parcel if the land at issue is subdivided into separate lots. (Cohen v. Anderson 22 Cal. App. 634, 642.)
What Type of Instrument Creates Color of Title?
Color of title may arise from an instrument that on its face purports to transfer title. The types of documents include a grant deed or judgment, but it may also arise from a quitclaim deed, invalid tax deed, sheriff’s deed, or partition. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 322; Red River Lumber Co. v. Null (1924) 66 Cal. App. 499, 503; Estate of Williams (1977) 73 Cal. App. 3d 141, 148–149.)
The instrument does not need to be recorded with the county’s recorder’s office. (Johns v. Scobie (1939) 12 Cal. 2d 618, 624.) This can help legitimize a deed but is not required in California. Specifically for a color of title claim, recordation can establish the claimant’s intention to claim the property adversely to the true owner. (Estate of Williams 73 Cal. App. at 147.)
What if the Instrument Fails to Create Color of Title?
Even if an instrument does not meet the requirements of color of title it may still provide evidence of the possessor’s intent to claim title to the property and create notice of their claim as a possessor. (Kraemer v. Kraemer (1959)167 Cal. App. 2d 291, 308–309; Lobro v. Watson (1974) 42 Cal. App. 3d 180, 188.) For example, if the possessor is listed on the county tax roll for the property will not establish color of title. (Southern Pac. Co. v. City and County of San Francisco (1964) 62 Cal. 2d 50, 54–55.) A purchase money receipt is also insufficient to give color of title. (Los Angeles Interurban Ry. Co. v. Montijo (1908) 153 Cal. 15, 16.) A tax deed for a partial interest in property is also insufficient to show color of title. (Hacienda Ranch Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 1122, 1129.) A “wild deed” where the grantor has no title to convey may give color of title to the grantee. However, this is usually determined by the factual circumstance of the case and whether there was hostility or if the deed was recorded to be deceitful. (Aguayo v. Amaro (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 1102, 1112–1113.)
How can Someone Assert Property Rights Through Color of Title?
Color of title can be used to establish claiming the property as his own in a claim for adverse possession. When someone alleges title by adverse possession under color of title, the title includes all of the property described in the document. This applies even if the person is only in actual possession of a part of the property at issue. (Thompson, at 339.). When the deed describes only a portion of the property title can be claimed only as to that portion of the property. (Anderson Cottonwood Irr. Dist. v. Zinzer, (1942) 51 Cal. App. 2d 587, 591.) Color of title itself is an adverse claim to the property. This means the document being invalid is evidence that the title is adverse to the actual owner, creating a claim for adverse possession.
What is an Example?
For example, “Julie” was given a piece of property by grant deed by her brother “Shawn.” The land had a home and a guest house on the property. Upon accepting the deed, Julie did not know the land was still held by Shawn’s distant cousin. As such, Shawn did not actually have the ability to give Julie title to the property. Because Julie believed the instrument was valid and the instrument itself was unable to transfer the property to Julie, Julie has color of title. If Julie occupies the home or guest house for the required statutory period, she will have a claim for adverse possession against Shawn’s distant cousin. Even partial possession of the property is enough to show occupation under color of title. This means while Julie lived only in the home, she can still show occupation of the property. The property has not been divided into subparcels in a way that would negate her claim to the entire tract of land.
Conclusion
Color of title is an adverse title resulting in a claim to a property based on an invalid document. This type of title can allow someone to make a claim for adverse possession to quiet title to the property. Color of title may arise as part of a partition action.
The Underwood Law Firm has a team of experienced lawyers who can help resolve your title issues as they relate to partition and help you pursue solutions to ensure clarity of title. We are here to help.