Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 2. PROPERTY / PART 4. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY / TITLE 4. TRANSFER / CHAPTER 2. Transfer of Real Property / ARTICLE 2. Effect of Transfer
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1106 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Where a person purports by proper instrument to grant real property in fee simple, and subsequently acquires any title, or claim of title thereto, the same passes by operation of law to the grantee, or his successors.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1942–2022 · leading case: Weston Johnson v. E-Z Ins. Brokerage, Inc., 175 Cal. App. 4th 86 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Weston Johnson v. E-Z Ins. Brokerage, Inc., 175 Cal. App. 4th 86 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “” (Civ. Code, § 1106.) Accordingly, when a debtor purports to convey bankruptcy estate property, title to the property will vest in the grantee when the bankruptcy proceedings close if the property was nonadministered.”
RNT Holdings v. United Gen. Title Ins. Co. CA2/4, 230 Cal. App. 4th 1289 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “) As explained in Perego , “it is well settled that a trust deed creates a valid lien on real property to secure a debt for which it is executed, even though the trustor has no title to the property at the time of the execution of the instrument, provided he subsequently…”
Schwenn v. Kaye, 82 Oil & Gas Rep. 30 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). “Plaintiff contends that she never intended such a result and therefore, her true intent ought to have been considered by the court and equitable principles applied in order to preserve her family’s interest in the royalties.”
Howell v. Dowling, 126 P.2d 630 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942). “” It also expressly conveyed after acquired title. “Where a person purports by proper instrument to grant real property in fee simple, and subsequently acquires any title, or claim of title thereto, the same passes by operation of law to the grantee, or his successor.”
United States v. Warne, 190 F. Supp. 645 (N.D. Cal. 1960). “Therefore, argues the State, Phillips’ prior deed of April 6, 1943 did not pass title to the United States until at least July 17, 1943, under the rule of after-acquired title, set forth in California Civil Code Section 1106. Defendants contend that there is thus presented a…”
Hall v. Malloy, 2015 ND 94 (N.D. 2015). · cites it 2× “The California Supreme Court cited several California statutes using the word “instrument,” including Cal. Civ. Code § 1106 , and construed the word “instrument” consistently throughout those statutes “to indicate some written paper or instrument signed and delivered by one…”
Lebolt v. City & Cnty. of S.F. CA1/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “(Civ. Code, § 1106.) According to the Lebolts, the City conveyed the Property, which it did not own, to Newhouse in the 1914 Tax Deed.”
Lebolt v. City & Cnty. of S.F. CA1/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “(Civ. Code, § 1106.) According to the Lebolts, the City conveyed the Property, which it did not own, to Newhouse in the 1914 Tax Deed.”
Lebolt v. City & Cnty. of S.F. CA1/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “(Civ. Code, § 1106.) According to the Lebolts, the City conveyed the Property, which it did not own, to Newhouse in the 1914 Tax Deed.”
Shah v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. CA1/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “court concluded that Fidelity met its burden to show coverage terminated under section 2(b) of the title policy before Shah’s 2009 tender because Shah had voluntarily transferred the property to his parents in 2002, and the transfer became effective by operation of law in May…”
Shah v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. CA1/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “court concluded that Fidelity met its burden to show coverage terminated under section 2(b) of the title policy before Shah’s 2009 tender because Shah had voluntarily transferred the property to his parents in 2002, and the transfer became effective by operation of law in May…”
Energrey Enter., Inc. v. Oak Creek Energy Sys., Inc. (In re Oak Creek Energy Farms, Ltd.), 99 B.R. 36 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1989). “1106, the Common Law Rule, which is much broader, survived the enactment of C.C. 1106. The Common Law Rule is based on the doctrine of estoppel, that is, the grantor leads the grantee to believe that a certain estate or title is being conveyed.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.