Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Crisci v. Sorce
Citations: 150 Cal. App. 2d 96; 309 P.2d 941; 1957 Cal. App. LEXIS 2131Docket: Civ. No. 16951
Court: California Court of Appeal; April 15, 1957; California; State Appellate Court
Rosina Crisci, both individually and as executrix of Giovanni Crisci's will, filed a suit against her son Joseph Sorce and his wife Maria to quiet title to real property. The trial examined whether the court improperly denied Joseph's request for a continuance to obtain an attorney, amidst a history of delays. The court found no abuse of discretion, supported by evidence that Rosina purchased the property with her own funds, paid taxes, and acted as the owner. Joseph's claim that he funded the purchase was deemed implausible, especially since he made this assertion only after the lawsuit was initiated, suggesting a possible intention to gift the property to Rosina. Joseph questioned Rosina's credibility and sought additional documentation to support his claims, but the court ruled that Rosina's oral testimony was sufficient and competent. Joseph was given opportunities for cross-examination, which he utilized. The court also rejected Joseph's vague request for documentation, stating it lacked specificity. The trial was deemed fair, and the judgment was affirmed, with a denial of rehearing and a petition for Supreme Court review. Maria, as a defendant, had received multiple extensions but ultimately defaulted, while Joseph and Maria filed a joint answer after further delays. The case is associated with another case involving similar parties.