Freeman v. Affiliated Property Craftsmen

• Decision Date: 22 October 1968
• Citation: 266 Cal.App.2d 723,72 Cal.Rptr. 357
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Joseph H. FREEMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. AFFILIATED PROPERTY CRAFTSMEN etc. et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 31343.

Page 357

72 Cal.Rptr. 357

266 Cal.App.2d 723

Joseph H. FREEMAN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. AFFILIATED PROPERTY CRAFTSMEN etc. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Civ. 31343.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

Oct. 22, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1968.

Hearing Denied Dec. 18, 1968.

Sidney Sampson, Los Angeles, and David J. Sachs, Beverly Hills, for defendants and appellants.

Joseph H. Freeman and Velma B. Freeman, in pro. per.

STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal taken by three of many defendants in a quiet title action decreeing fee title to an undivided interest to be in plaintiffs and declaring that no interest in and to the property involved is had by defendants, or any of them.

For analysis of this appeal, except as may necessarily be included within the general statement of facts, we will discuss only the claims and defenses of plaintiffs Joseph H. and Velma B. Freeman; plaintiffs in intervention Jack and Pearl Shultz; defendants William L. and Celeste M. Hoerber and Affiliated Property Craftsmen Local 44.

On and before February 16, 1900, one Batcheller, as administrator of the John H. Packer estate, was the owner in fee simple and in possession of all of the lands involved in this dispute. On February 16, 1900, in an action entitled Beverage v. Manning, a judgment of condemnation was recorded, condemning the strip of land 35 feet wide and traversing the whole of the property (approximately 600 feet in length), subsequently to be described as the 'A. Gardner West of Hollywood Subdivision.' By this condemnation decree, there was condemned an easement for railroad right of way only, the fee title not being condemned. Thereafter, distribution of the property involved from the Packer estate was made to Mary M. Packer (29/30ths) and William C. Packer, Jr. (1/30th) of undivided interests of 'The west thirty five (35) acres of the fractional north east quarter (N.E. 1/4) of said Section nine (9).' By two deeds, one of March 23, 1901 from Mary M. Packer and one of May 13, 1901 from William C. Packer, Jr. (by guardian), the referred-to 35 acre property was conveyed in fee simple to one Alan Gardner. The Los Angeles Pacific Company received by grant deed on January 15, 1906 that easement theretofore acquired by the condemnor on February 16, 1900, and nothing more. ¹ On July 17, 1901, Gardner recorded the map of 'A. Gardner's West of Hollywood Subdivision.'

On May 28, 1902, Gardner conveyed to one Weisel (predecessor in title to the portion of said property hereinafter referred to as the Shultz property) 'Lot Two (2) of A. Gardner's West of Hollywood Subdivision, * * * Excepting a strip six (6) feet wide along the southeast line of said lot as far as a culvert under the railroad track for drainage purposes only.' At the time of this conveyance of the Shultz property (Lot 2), the recorded tract map appeared as in Diagram #1.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

On February 11, 1905, Gardner recorded the map of 'A. Gardner Tract' (hereinafter referred to as 'resubdivision map).

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

By the 'resubdivision,' Gardner altered his subdivision plan of 1901 (at least as far as the property with which we are concerned) from acreage parcels or lots to city lots. Also, he dedicated an alley, with which we are not concerned, and, for street purposes, an area on the easterly edge of a portion of the original subdivision, a 40 foot strip (Vista Street) extending from Sunset Boulevard north to Michigan Avenue (these being existent, dedicated streets). Excluded from the 'resubdivision' is that portion of the original subdivision designated as 'Lot 2,' which had been conveyed to Weisel.

By various transactions shown by deeds of record and a stipulation of fact, it appears that one Larsen acquired the property designated as 'Lot 2' on the original subdivision map and obtained a quitclaim deed from Gardner in 1924 relative thereto. By this conveyance of 1924, the 6 foot reservation as set forth in the Weisel deed of 1902 was eliminated. Likewise, by stipulation, it is established that the Shultzes 'are the record owners of the southerly 202.90 feet of Lot 2 of A. Gardner's West of Hollywood Subdivision, as more particularly described in that certain deed from Alan Gardner and Ada K. Gardner to Peter Weisel, dated May 28, 1902, * * *.' The particular portion of the original subdivision denoted as 'lot 2,' which at present is owned by the Shultzes, is that portion shown on Diagram #3 (see attached) and numbered (A) and (B). The record then may be said to establish that the property owned by the Shultzes is a portion of that 'Lot 2' conveyed in 1902 to Weisel, but without the drainage ditch reservation. ² Title in the Shultzes derived from immediate predecessors, one Franklin (Lot A) and one Montgomery (Lot B).

On March 6, 1905, Gardner conveyed Lot 1 in Block 1 as shown in the 'resubdivision' may (Diagram #2) to one Soethout. 'Lot No. 1' of the resubdivision map, Block 1, was a triangular lot with a frontage of 242 feet on the south side (Sunset Boulevard). The hypotenuse of 'Lot No. 1' was parallel to and southeasterly of the southeasterly property line of the Shultz 'Lot 2.' In 1945, the Hoerbers succeeded to a portion of this interest, the Hoerber ownership covering the westerly 60.92 feet thereof only. The Hoerber lot is designated (C) on Diagram #3.

On October 7, 1948, one Dulgarian became the owner of a portion of the Soethout Lot No. 1. This parcel adjoined the Hoerber parcel on the west and extended easterly along Sunset for 50 feet, and is designated (D) on Diagram #3. On June 10, 1954, Affiliated Local 44 acquired the remainder of the Soethout Lot No. 1, and this portion of the Soethout Lot No. 1 is designated (E) on the resubdivision map. ³

The property in issue is that area of the 'subdivision' and 'resubdivision' maps denominated 'Los Angeles Pacific Railway,' which is adjacent to the properties of Shultz, Hoerber, and Affiliated Local 44. Each of these parties claims an ownership in the railway strip to the center thereof for the length of their properties.

The total area of the disputed 'strip' is .55 acres. Following Los Angeles Pacific Railway's acquisition of the property, a rail line was built over the 35 foot wide strip, and an electric railway was operated thereon until some time in 1954. During 1954 the Pacific Electric Railway Company abandoned the line by proper authorization, and the rails themselves were removed in March of 1955. Subsequently, Pacific Electric leased portions of the strip to various owners of property abutting portions of the strip. Affiliated Local 44 was not among the lessees, but the Hoerbers and persons prior in title to the Shultzes were.

Pacific Electric did not claim title in fee from the condemnation judgment, but did claim title in fee by adverse possession after 1955. From within a few weeks after the tracks had been removed, Affiliated Local 44 commenced using the adjacent portion of the strip for business parking purposes, with access obtained from Sunset Boulevard and from underneath Affiliated's business structure. No authorization for the continuous parking was obtained, and it was open and notorious, continuing for more than 5 years prior to the filing of this action. Affiliated filed an amended cross-complaint, adding a claim for easement by prescription if the court denied its claim to title in fee by prescription of the whole of said 35 foot strip adjacent to the property of Affiliated. The use of any or all of the strip for parking was not exclusive as to Affiliated, nor was control attempted by them.

No portion of the Pacific Electric right of way was included in the inventory, or specifically described in the estate of Alan Gardner. In the original subdivision map, the strip is designated as 'Los Angeles Pacific Railway,' and is not shown as a street, road, highway, or alley. In the 'resubdivision' map, in addition to the above-referred to designation, there is a further inscription: 'Not a Portion of this Tract.' This notation appears along the northwesterly edge of the strip and adjacent to the southeasterly portion of 'Lot 2' as shown on the original subdivision map.

The Freemans acquired the title they claim to the strip by various deeds from successors in interest of the estate of Alan Gardner. The Freemans contend that title to the strip passed from the Gardner estate in the omnibus clause.

The contentions of the Shultzes and Hoerbers differ from those of Affiliated, and will therefore be considered separately.

The first contention by the Shultzes and Hoerbers is that, as adjoining owners of the subject property (strip), they took title to the bordering underlying fee under the presumptions of Civil Code, sections 831 and 1112 and Code of Civil Procedure, section 2077(4). ⁴

By the contention made, the rule applicable to monuments as boundaries is urged as applicable here. The case of Freeman v. Bellegarde, 108 Cal. 179, 184, 41 P. 289, 290, succinctly states the rule as follows: 'In the absence of any qualifying term, the designation in a conveyance of any physical object or monument as a boundary implies the middle or central point of such boundary, as, for example, if the boundary be a road or highway or a stream, the thread of the road or stream will be intended; if a rock, a heap of stones, or a tree be the boundary, the central point of such tree or rock or heap of stones will be intended. A private grant is to be interpreted in favor of the grantee, and, if the grantor is the owner of the monument or boundary designated in his grant, his conveyance will be held to extend to the middle line or central point of such monument or boundary.'

The Shultzes and Hoerbers trace their titles to the original owner and subdivider of the property (Gardner), and there is no question on appeal but that Gardner was...