Coast Storage Co. v. Schwartz
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FOSTER; WEAVER |
| Citation | Coast Storage Co. v. Schwartz, 55 Wn.2d 848, 351 P.2d 520 (Wash. 1960) |
| Decision Date | 07 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 35101 |
| Parties | COAST STORAGE COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, and Coast Land Corporation, a corporation, Appellants, v. Harry SCHWARTZ and Arminta B. Schwartz, his wife, Respondents and Cross-Appellants. |
Rummens, Griffin, Short & Cressman and John H. Faltys, Seattle, for appellant.
Ryan, Askren, Mathewson, Carlson & Bush, Laurance S. Carlson and Douglas R. Hendel, Seattle, for respondents and cross-appellants.
Appellants, plaintiffs below, brought suit to quiet title to real property against the respondents and cross-appellants, defendants below. 1 The judgment granted the relief sought by each party. Plaintiffs appeal from the relief granted the defendants who cross-appeal from the relief granted the plaintiffs.
The dispute concerns easements created by deeds of record. The entire parcel, which includes tracts 57, 58, 60, 61 and 66 of Moore's five-acre tracts, a platted subdivision in King county, Washington, was all originally owned by N. C. Jannsen, the common grantor of both parties. The property is shown on diagram No. 2. 2
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
In October, 1949, Jannsen sold to the Golden Bear Oil Company portions of tracts 57 and 61, marked 'Barkow' on diagram No. 2, and colored pink. Jannsen's deed to Golden Bear granted it an easement, for road purposes, twenty-four feet wide across Jannsen's tract 66, east to East Marginal Way, as shown upon diagram No. 2, colored red. The same deed reserved to Jannsen, for road purposes, a strip twelve feet wide across the northerly boundary of the property conveyed to the Golden Bear Oil Company (marked 'Barkow' on diagram No. 2).
In 1955, Jannsen having died, his executor conveyed to the plaintiffs the remaining portions of tracts 57, 58, 60 and 61, lying west and north of the property conveyed to the Golden Bear Oil Company in 1949, and marked 'Coast Storage' on diagram No. 3, and colored blue. The deed to Coast Storage Company granted it the right to construct a railway spur across Jannsen's remaining parcel, tract 66, and provided that, in such event, a new roadway was to follow the railway spur. It was further provided that if Coast Storage Company did not exercise such option within the period specified, Jannsen reserved the right to relocate the existing roadway easement along the southern boundary of tract 66, which he still owned.
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
Eleven months later, Jannsen's executor conveyed to the defendants Schwartz the balance of Jannsen's land described as tract 66, marked 'Schwartz' on diagram No. 4, and colored green. The deed to the defendants Schwartz was specifically subjected to the easement over tract 66 granted by deed to the Golden Bear Oil Company in 1949. By quitclaim deed, dated July 23, 1957, Jannsen's executor conveyed to the defendants Schwartz Jannsen's interest in the twelve foot easement reserved by Jannsen along the northerly boundary of the property conveyed to Golder Bear in 1949.
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
By mesne conveyances, the plaintiffs subsequently became the owners of the property and easements conveyed in 1949 by Jannsen to the Golden Bear Oil Company. Thus, they now own the whole tract west of the abandoned Francis avenue, which bisects the entire original Jannsen tract.
The prayer of the plaintiffs' complaint was to quiet plaintiffs' title to the easement along the northerly boundary of the tract originally conveyed by Jannsen to the Golden Bear Oil Company in 1949. A the time of the Golden Bear deed, this easement across the Golden Bear property was a necessary means of access between Jannsen's tract 66 and the property retained by Jannsen (conveyed in 1955 to Coast Storage) lying on the west of vacated Francis avenue.
When all of the property which had been retained by Jannsen in 1949 and lying west of the vacated street and the property conveyed to the Golden Bear Oil Company passed into the common ownership of the plaintiffs, the easement originally reserved by Jannsen terminated. One cannot have an easement in his own property. The easement no longer serves the property north and west of the Golden Bear tract now owned by the plaintiffs; nor does the easement now beneficially serve tract 66 to the east owned by defendants Schwartz. There is no longer any reason or necessity to go from defendants Schwartz' parcel east of the abandoned street to those north and west of the tract first acquired by Golder Bear. An easement is a use interest, and to exist as an appurtenance to land, must serve some beneficial use. The strip now ends in the middle of plaintiffs' property. It does not lead anywhere, truly a dead-end roadway.
That portion of the judgment quieting the plaintiffs' title to this strip is affirmed.
The prayer of the defendants' cross-complaint was to decree...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Johnson v. Lake Cushman Maint. Co.
... ... , M.K.K.I., Inc. , 135 Wash. App. at 659, 145 P.3d 411 ; Coast Storage Co. v. Schwartz , 55 Wash.2d 848, 853, 351 P.2d 520 (1960) (holding that "[o]ne cannot ... ...
-
MacMeekin v. Lihi
... ... In Coast Storage Co. v. Schwartz, 55 Wash.2d 848, 351 P.2d 520 (1960), the servient estate sought to ... ...
-
Kline v. Bernardsville Ass'n, Inc.
... ... 622, 386 N.E.2d 1000, 1002 (1979); Davis v. Bruk, 411 A.2d 660, 664-66 (Me.1980); Coast Storage Co. v. Schwartz, 55 Wash.2d 848, 351 P.2d 520, 525 (1960). Others have applied equitable ... ...
-
Lingvall v. Bartmess
... ... See Coast Storage Co. v. Schwartz, 55 Wash.2d 848, 853, 351 P.2d 520 (1960) ... Because we ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...17.5(4)(a) Clippinger v. Birge, 14 Wn.App. 976, 547 P.2d 871 (1976): 7.7(1)(a), 7.7(1)(c), 8.6(1)(c)(iii) Coast Storage Co. v. Schwartz, 55 Wn.2d 848, 351 P.2d 520 (1960): 7.2(1), 7.8(2)(a) Cobb Healy Inv. Co. v. Tall, 181 Wash. 300, 42 P.2d 1107 (1935): 17.11(3)(c) Cochran v. Cochran, 114 ......
-
Table of Cases
...211, 68 P. 456 (1902): 6.8(2) Clients' Serv. Inc. v. Pupo, 71 Wn.2d 610, 430 P.2d 552 (1967): 18.3(4)(b) Coast Storage Co. v. Schwartz, 55 Wn.2d 848, 351 P.2d 520 (1960): 14.8(4) Cogan v. Kidder, Mathews & Segner, Inc., 97 Wn.2d 658, 648 P.2d 875 (1982): 18.3(4) Cogswell v. Forest, 14 Wash.......
-
§7.8 - Duration and Termination of Easements
...is located become vested in the same person, the resulting merger of these rights terminates the easement. Coast Storage Co. v. Schwartz, 55 Wn.2d 848, 351 P.2d 520 (1960). The easement is terminated because ownership rights of the dominant and servient estates become merged in a title in f......
-
§ 14.8 - Duration and Termination of Conservation Easements
...an easement holder from releasing a conservation easement to the grantor. See RCW 64.04.130; RCW 84.34.210; Coast Storage Co. v. Schwartz, 55 Wn.2d 848, 854, 351 P.2d 520 (1960). Federal tax law does, however, limit the circumstances under which an easement can be terminated to when it is i......