In Arthur v. Davis (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 684, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur signed a piece of paper that turned out to be a grant deed transferring their property back to their seller, the previous owner. (Id. at p. 688.) After Mr. Arthur died, Mrs. Arthur sued the seller for slander of title, cancellation of the deed, and to quiet title in her. (Id. at p. 689.) A jury awarded her damages on the legal claims, and the trial court granted the requested equitable relief. (Id. at pp. 689-691.) On appeal, the seller claimed the court erred in quieting title in Mrs. Arthur because Mr. Arthur's estate was not made a party to the action but the trial court had quieted title in his one-half interest in the property. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the seller, noting her theory of the case was incorrect. The seller apparently believed that Mr. Arthur had obtained his wife's signature on the grant deed without her consent or capacity, and that as a result, when he transferred the deed to the seller, his and his wife's joint tenancy in the property terminated. (Arthur v. Davis, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at pp. 692-693.) This theory was contrary to the trial court's finding that Mrs. Arthur and Mr. Arthur had held the property in joint tenancy at all times, that neither of them intended to transfer any interest in the property back to the seller, and that upon Mr. Arthur's death, all interest in the property passed to Mrs. Arthur. Thus, the trial court had not erred in quieting title in Mrs. Arthur without the estate of her late husband being named as a party. (Arthur v. Davis, supra, 126 Cal.App.3d at p. 693.)