Carlson v. Lindauer
| Decision Date | 22 July 1953 |
| Citation | 119 Cal.App.2d 292,259 P.2d 925 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CARLSON et al. v. LINDAUER et al. Civ. 19504. |
Bodkin, Breslin & Luddy, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Wellborn, Barrett & Rodi, and Frank C. Hubbard, Los Angeles, for respondents.
Appeal by defendants-cross-complainants, referred to as defendants, from a judgment for plaintiffs entered on an order sustaining demurrers to the answer and to the cross-complaint without leave to amend and on an order granting plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings in suit to quiet title to realty.
The complaint is in the usual form of one to quiet title. Defendants answered and filed a cross-complaint. Plaintiffs demurred to the answer on the grounds it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense, and that the defense is barred by the provisions of section 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and to the cross-complaint, on the grounds it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that any cause of action is barred by the provisions of sections 318 and 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs also moved for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds the answer does not raise any material issue and the cross-complaint does not state a cause of action. The demurrers were sustained without leave to amend and the motion was granted. Defendants appeal from the judgment which followed. They also appeal from the orders sustaining the demurrers and granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Since these orders are nonappealable the appeals therefrom will be dismissed.
The answer admits plaintiffs are the owners of the surface rights in the realty; denies plaintiffs have any right, title, or interest in the oil rights; alleges the interest of plaintiffs in the surface rights is subject to rights, privileges, and easements in connection with exploring and drilling for oil in accordance with a conveyance from H. T. Rudisill to Union Oil Company, recorded March 29, 1904; alleges defendants claim an estate and interest adverse to plaintiffs; denies defendants' claims are without right.
The answer further alleges:
A. Luther Lindauer, father of two defendants and grandfather of the other two, died August 11, 1936. At that time he was the owner of the surface rights, but not of the oil rights. By his will he devised and bequeathed all his estate to his wife, Lucy, the mother of two defendants and the grandmother of the other two. About August 28, 1936, Lucy was appointed and qualified as executrix of Luther's will.
B. April 1, 1940, while she was executrix of Luther's will, Lucy, individually, entered into a written agreement with Union Oil Company. The agreement was between Union 'and the owners of certain interests in the lands' described, including Lucy. One of the parcels of land described in the agreement was that in suit here. The agreement recited that by a recorded deed, dated April 12, 1904, Union acquired from H. T. Rudisill and wife, all oil, gas, and like substances in, upon, and under the described parcels of land. The agreement provided:
'1. This agreement shall apply only to the lands hereinabove described. Whenever hereinafter the term 'lands' shall be used it shall be taken to mean, unless the context shall otherwise so provide, the lands hereinabove described or a portion thereof. Whenever hereinafter the words 'lands subject to this agreement' shall be used, they shall be taken to mean lands forming a part of the lands hereinabove described which belong to an Owner or Owners who have signed this agreement, and which have not been quitclaimed by Union.
'2. Union is about to commence the drilling of a test well on some part of said lands for the purpose of determining the existence therein of oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances and whether or not the same can be produced therefrom in quantities deemed paying by it. From time to time additional test wells, as in Union's opinion are required, may be drilled, but in any event unless Union shall develop production on said lands in quantities which it deems paying within a period of five (5) years from the first day of April, 1940, it will thereupon quitclaim to the respective Owners, as their interests may appear, all of its right, title and interest in and to the oil, gas and other hydocarbon substances in the said lands and the rights in connection therewith granted to Union by the deed hereinabove referred to.
'3. In the event any of said test wells demonstrate that oil, gas or other hydrocarbon substances can be produced from said lands in such paying quantities, Union will, within said five-year period, determine which of said lands it wishes to retain hereunder for the purpose of further exploration and of development for oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances. Thereupon all of said lands which Union does not so elect to retain under this agreement shall be by it quitclaimed to the respective Owners thereof free and clear of all claims of whatsoever kind by Union, excepting such rights-of-way for pipe lines and pole lines as shall be necessary or desirable for Union's operations on retained lands, and as shall then be in use or shall be selected by Union.
'4. In the event, however, that at any time during said five-year period or afterwards Union shall determine to its own satisfaction that any portion of said lands is not capable of producing oil, gas or other hydrocarbon substances in quantities deemed paying by Union, it shall quitclaim to the Owner or Owners thereof all of its right, title and interest in and to said lands, subject to said rights-of-way, and thereupon such lands shall no longer be subject to this agreement.
'5. All owners of lands subject to this agreement shall be entitled to participate in the payments made on account of the value of production as hereinafter set forth, unless and until such lands shall be quitclaimed.
'All owners of lands hereinabove described shall be entitled to share in payments on account of production obtained from wells located on said lands, only from and after the date of their signing this agreement; provided, however, that to become entitled to any participation hereunder such owners must sign this agreement within said five-year period.'
Union agreed, subparagraph (a), to pay to each signatory owner of lands 10% of the value of the oil and gas produced from the lands, and the value of 40% of the gasoline and other substances extracted from such gas after specified deductions, and to pay any damage caused by its operations. The agreement also contained this provision:
The agreement was recorded July 2, 1940.
C. August 11, 1940, Lucy died and Gold, a son of Luther and Lucy, was appointed administrator with-the-will-annexed of Luther's estate. August 30, 1940, Lucy's will was admitted to probate and executors were appointed.
D. April 11, 1941, the probate court, in the estate of Luther, confirmed the sale of 'the property' to plaintiffs, in consideration of $5,500. April 12, 1941, the administrator executed and delivered a deed conveying to plaintiffs 'all the right, title, and interest of the decedent Luther Lindauer at the time of his death, and all right, title, and interest that the estate may have subsequently acquired by operation of law or otherwise' in and to 'the property.' The estate of Luther did not own, possess, nor have any right to any interest, nor did it thereafter acquire any interest in 'the oil rights of the property.' The deed did not convey to plaintiffs any interest in the oil rights.
E. Part of the property owned by Lucy at the time of her death was the right to receive a quitclaim deed from Union, conveying to her all of Union's right, title, and interest in and to the oil rights if Union elected, pursuant to the agreement of April 1, 1940, to quitclaim such rights 'during Lucy's lifetime.' Such right constituted a part of Lucy's estate. The final decree of distribution made September 1, 1941, in Lucy's estate, distributed to defendants Gold E. Lindauer, Genevieve M. Hough, and Gus L. Lindauer, deceased father of defendants Luther Lindauer and Dolores Lindauer Olivarez, and they became the owners of, the oil rights. Upon the death of Gus L. Lindauer, defendants Luther Lindauer and Dolores Lindauer Olivarez succeeded to his interest.
F. On December 1, 1941, pursuant to the agreement of April 1, 1940, Union elected to quitclaim to Lucy and executed a deed by which it quitclaimed 'unto Owner, its heirs, successors and assigns,' all of its right, title, and interest in the realty. This deed was recorded December 5, 1941, and contemporaneously therewith an executed duplicate copy was mailed to Lucy at her address appearing in the agreement of April 1, 1940, and was received by defendants.
G. None of the defendants has conveyed any of his interest in the oil rights and defendants are the owners thereof.
The allegations of the cross-complaint are substantially those of the answer, with these additions:
1. On May 27, 1903, W. J. Hole and wife were the owners of the fee title to the realty; and on that date, by deed recorded June 6, 1903, conveyed to H. T. Rudisill the oil rights together with the right to enter on the property for the purpose of extracting, etc., the substances constituting the same.
2. On March 12, 1904, Rudisill by deed recorded March 29, 1904, conveyed the oil rights together with the right of entry for extraction, etc., to Union.
3. June 19, 1919, W....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court
...(1938) 11 Cal.2d 609, 613, 82 P.2d 362.) This precept applies without distinction to quitclaim deeds (see Carlson v. Lindauer (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 292, 306, 259 P.2d 925; MacFarland v. Walker, supra, 40 Cal.App. at p. 512, 181 P. 248) and supports the finding of a fee conveyance. Civil Cod......
-
Espy v. Espy
...that works a disadvantage to another." (Lubin v. Lubin (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 781, 794, 302 P.2d 49, quoting Carlson v. Lindauer (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 292, 309, 259 P.2d 925.) Again, the record cannot even support the requisite finding--let alone a conclusion as a matter of law. Glenn testif......
-
Jay v. Dollarhide
...or assigns,' is valid, even though at the time of reconveyance he and his first wife, Marguerite, were dead. (Carlson v. Lindauer, 119 Cal.App.2d 292, 306--307, 259 P.2d 925.) The word 'heirs' is no longer limited to designating the character of the estate, as at common law. (Cf. Civ.Code §......
-
Gerhard v. Stephens
...3 Cal.2d 110, 120, 43 P.2d 788; Schiffman v. Richfield Oil Co. (1937) 8 Cal.2d 211, 223-224, 64 P.2d 1081; Carlson v. Lindauer (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 292, 302, 259 P.2d 925; Wall v. Shell Oil Co. (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 504, 510-511, 25 Cal.Rptr. 908; see In re Barlow v. Security T. & S. Bank ......
-
CHAPTER 1 THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING MULTIPLE SURFACE USE ISSUES
...Griffin, 770 S.W.2d 137, 108 O.&G.R. 1 (Ark .1989); Bodcaw Lumber Co. v. Goode, 160 Ark. 48, 254 S.W. 345 (1923); Carlson v. Lindauer, 119 Cal.App.2d 292, 259 P.2d 925, 2 O.&G.R. 1363 (1953); Mitchell v. Espinosa, 125 Colo. 267, 243 P.2d 412 (1952); Dickinson v. Davis, 224 So.2d 262, 34 O.&......
-
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING MULTIPLE SURFACE USE ISSUES
...Griffin, 770 S.W.2d 137, 108 O.&G.R. 1 (Ark.1989); Bodcaw Lumber Co. v. Goode, 160 Ark. 48, 254 S.W. 345 (1923); Carlson v. Lindauer, 119 Cal.App.2d 292, 259 P.2d 925, 2 O.&G.R. 1363 (1953); Mitchell v. Espinosa, 125 Colo. 267, 243 P.2d 412 (1952); Dickinson v. Davis, 224 So.2d 262, 34 O.&G......
-
CHAPTER 12 LAND TITLE ISSUES RELATED TO THE ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF COAL ASSETS
...Lumber & Coal Co. v. Meyer, 85 F. Supp. 157 (W.D. Ark. 1949); Bodcaw Lumber Co. v. Goode, 254 S.W. 345 Ark. 1923); Carlson v. Lindauer, 259 P2d 925 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953); Corlett v. Cox, 333 P.2d 619 (Colo. 1958); Deverick v. Bline, 89 N.E.2d43 (Ill. 1949); Northwestern Imp. Co. v. Morton Co......