City of Los Angeles v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.

Decision Date30 April 1976
Docket NumberINGERSOLL-RAND
Citation129 Cal.Rptr. 485,57 Cal.App.3d 889
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a Municipal Corporation, and Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 47303.

Burke, Williams & Sorensen, and Carl K. Newton, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.

Burt Pines, City Atty., Edward C. Farrell, Chief Asst. City Atty., and Roger D. Weisman, Deputy City Atty., for plaintiffs and respondents.

THOMPSON, Associate Justice.

The case at bench involves the interpretation of a grant of an easement for power lines and related purposes to plaintiff Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles with the express reservation to the grantor, defendant's predecessor in interest, of the right to maintain and use the servient estate for agricultural purposes. The trial court having found that the use of the servient estate for the temporary limited parking of automobiles does not constitute an unreasonable interference with plaintiff's easement, we conclude that City of Los Angeles v. Igna (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 338, 25 Cal.Rptr. 247, requires that a judgment declaring that defendant may not use the servient estate for temporary limited parking and enjoining that use be reversed.

In 1936, defendant's predecessor in interest, for a consideration of $10, granted an easement to the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles over real property presently known as 5211 Paramount Boulevard. Prepared upon a standard printed Department of Water and Power form, the deed grants an easement over a strip of land 120 feet wide. The grant is delineated as: 'permanent and exclusive easements and rights of way to construct, reconstruct, maintain, operate, renew and enlarge lines of poles, towers, wires, cables and/or any other structures, including ground wires, both overhead and/or underground, necessary or convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, regulation and/or grounding of electrical transmission lines, for the purpose of transmitting . . . electrical energy, together with the right and easement for roads, ingress, egress, and other convenient purposes needed or desired at any time . . ., and the right and easement to . . . clear and keep said real property free from explosives, buildings, structures, brush and natural wood growth, and inflammable materials, for the protection from fire and/or other hazards; . . .'

A separate clause of the deed reserves to the grantor: 'only such grazing, agricultural and mineral rights and the right to maintain, cultivate, use, plant and replant said real property with orchards, groves, and vineyards, to a height not exceeding twenty-five feet, and erect non-inflammable fences upon said real property, as will not interfere with or prohibit the free and complete use and enjoyment . . . of the rights or easements hereby granted, provided however, that no building, inflammable fence, other structure, material or explosive of whatever nature or kind shall be placed, maintained or erected upon any portion of the above described real property by grantor, . . .'

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power installed a double circuit transmission line on the long axis of the easement. Carrying power from Hoover Dam to the southern Los Angeles area, each circuit has a capacity of 287.5 kilovolts. Each circuit consists of three conductors. The six conductors are supported by two towers positioned approximately 750 feet apart on either side of the ends of the easement. Neither tower is located on the easement itself. The six conductors weigh 1.566 pounds per foot, and the total weight suspended over the easement is 7,000 pounds.

Defendant acquired the grantor's property subject to the easement in April 1971. By then, the area of the property had changed from one of agricultural to industrial and commercial use. Defendant is in the business of marketing construction and mining products. Its facilities at 5211 Paramount Boulevard include an office building, a parts warehouse, and shop facilities. Defendant erected chain link fences crossing the easement perpendicular to its long axis. It used the surface of the property subject to the easement as an employee parking lot housing about 15 automobiles on a temporary basis during working hours and for storage of up to 24 air compressors. The compressors were stored, without fuel, on wheeled pallets.

A prior resolution to condemn a fee interest in the easement area having been aborted for lack of funds, the Department of Water and Power, on September 17, 1973, filed the complaint which commenced the case at bench. The complaint seeks a declaration that defendant is not entitled to use the surface of the property burdened by the easement for parking of automobiles or storage of compressors, and that defendant's construction of the fences obstructs the easement. The complaint also prays for injunctive relief to free the easement of the burdens which the complaint seeks to be declared an interference with the easement.

Neither party offered parol evidence to aid construction of the deed of easement. On conflicting evidence that would also have supported factual conclusions to the contrary, the trial court found that: (1) the fences and compressors constitute obstructions to plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the easement; (2) 'the defendant and plaintiff could arrange to permit parking of automobiles during working hours only with all keys to said cars being kept in the office, enforcing the prohibition...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial IrrIGAtion Dist.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 30 Septiembre 1985
    ...since Marina cannot build on the property in a manner inconsistent with its use for flooding (see City of Los Angeles v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 889, 893, 129 Cal.Rptr. 485 (" '[E]very incident of ownership not inconsistent with the easement and the enjoyment of the same, is......
  • Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irr. Dist.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 20 Marzo 1985
    ...since Marina cannot build on the property in a manner inconsistent with its use for flooding (see City of Los Angeles v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 57 Cal.App.3d 889, 893, 129 Cal.Rptr. 485 (" '[E]very incident of ownership not inconsistent with the easement and the enjoyment of the same, is reser......
  • Western Massachusetts Elec. Co. v. Sambo's of Massachusetts, Inc.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 21 Diciembre 1979
    ...land. Id. at 2, 234 N.E.2d 766. A case more apposite because the easement was silent as to parking is Los Angeles v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 57 Cal.App.3d 889, 893, 129 Cal.Rptr. 485 (1976). There, the court, on the basis of a finding by the trial court that limited parking was not an unreasona......
  • Kell v. Appalachian Power Co.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 22 Marzo 1982
    ...Aycock v. Houston Lighting & Power Co., 175 S.W.2d 710 (Tex.Civ.App.1943); Shedd, n. 8, supra.12 See Los Angeles v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 57 Cal.App.3d 889, 129 Cal.Rptr. 485 (1976); Public Service Co. v. Home Builders Assoc. of Realtors, Inc., 554 P.2d 1181 (Okl.1976); Alabama Power Co. v. S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT