Improperly handled Unlawful Detainer/Eviction case

[tranquility]

My goodness. Go on and look as foolish as you wish, but don't make the claim I say compensation is money. I said monetary value. Better (at least according to myriad cases) would be tangible value. The closest thing to nothing I've seen as "compensation" is the goodwill a business gets from allowing a person to test drive an automobile in the hope he will buy it and/or the drive home of a customer after a purchase. Of course, neither of those are in this criminal context but in the vehicle code context of if a person can sue the driver of a vehicle they are riding in for certain damages. Looking at the cases regarding this statute, they are talking about people getting paid--although sometimes the payment is in items and sometimes the payment is attenuated. (As in, a person with a "power of attorney" of another to do a sale is exempted from the statute. But, this same person had a separate "service contract" where the person was paid for general duties. Guy puts up a for sale sign with his phone number on it. Compensation? Yes, because of the prior "remunerative relationship" the action was with the expectation of personal gain.)

A son helping his mother do something is not compensation because his mother may like him better. Inheritance is not compensation unless predicated on an act as in you will get the house if you take care of me in my final years.

I don't know if the OP was compensated. But, NOTHING you have proposed has been determined to be compensation under California law. Not under this statute, not under vehicle code statutes or under usury statues, nor in the cases that discuss them. Since there are a number of great philosophical arguments there is no such thing as altruism, I guess everything we do is compensated. Except that the courts find it a factual issue to be decided upon. Now, go find your case saying:
Love and affection is compensation.
or
The hope to inherit (from being liked better) is compensation. (As in not under a contract of doing this will result in that.)

until then, you're just arguing for the sake of it.

 

[justalayman]

Now, go find your case saying:
Love and affection is compensation.
.

OK.

Cummins v. Cummims, 7 Cal. App. 2d 294 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate Dist. 1935

[4] Neither are we impressed with the argument that there was a failure of consideration. The agreement and 302*302 deeds recited that they were made in consideration of love and affection. This has always been considered a sufficient consideration between husband and wife. (Tillaux v. Tillaux, 115 Cal. 663 [47 P. 691].)

I cannot access the cited case but apparently it does state that "love and affection" is valuable consideration.

 

[tranquility]

OK.

Cummins v. Cummims, 7 Cal. App. 2d 294 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate Dist. 1935




I cannot access the cited case but apparently it does state that "love and affection" is valuable consideration.

Not quite. (But, at least you have the beginning of an argument.) The case said (emphasis mine in both quotes):

[4] Neither are we impressed with the argument that there was a failure of consideration. The agreement and [7 Cal. App. 2d 302] deeds recited that they were made in consideration of love and affection. This has always been considered a sufficient consideration between husband and wife. (Tillaux v. Tillaux, 115 Cal. 663 [47 P. 691].

If we look to the holding of THAT case, it is summarized in Norby v. Pister 114 Cal.App.2d 510:

"It is settled that a deed without fraud in its inception conveys the title, and is not void for any failure of consideration, either in whole or in part. (Tillaux v. Tillaux, 115 Cal. 663, 667, 668 [47 P. 691].) Acts done subsequent [114 Cal. App. 2d 512] to the execution and delivery of a deed cannot affect its integrity, and a subsequent failure of consideration or breach of a personal covenant not amounting to a condition, will not avoid the deed, if there was no fraud or false representation.

Otherwise, every gift will be enforceable as there is "consideration". A more modern Supreme Court case (Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 US 278 (1960)) would disagree.