Haun v. Hyman
Decision Date | 20 December 1963 |
Citation | 223 Cal.App.2d 615,36 Cal.Rptr. 84 |
Parties | Helen G. HAUN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Frank J. HYMAN and Nellie Howard Hyman, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 21186. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Rawles, Nelson & Golden, Ukiah, for appellants.
Leo M. Cook, Ukiah, for respondent.
This is an appeal by defendants Frank J. and Nellie H. Hyman from a judgment quieting plaintiff Helen G. Haun's title to a four-acre parcel of land and awarding her compensatory and punitive damages for trespass upon said property.
Ralph W. Todd, the father of Helen G. Haun, was formerly the owner of the real property which is the subject of this litigation. After his death, his administratrix conveyed certain real property to the Hymans and some people named Penitenti, whose interest was subsequently acquired by the Hymans. The remainder of the Todd property was distributed to certain heirs of the decedent, including Helen G. Haun. She subsequently acquired the interest of the other distributees (see facts set forth in Hyman v. Haun (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 891, 892-894, 13 Cal.Rptr. 87.)
Prior to the present action, the Hymans brought a quiet title suit against Helen G. Haun. The basic issue in that action was whether the deed from the administratrix of the Todd estate to the Hymans and the Penitentis conveyed 14 acres, as the Hymans contended, or merely 10 acres, as Helen G. Haun contended. This dispute arose as the result of certain ambiguities in the deed, whereby the property conveyed was described as extending '* * * along the East boundary of said State Highway, 1169.00 feet to the highwater line on the Southerly side of Noyo River * * *.' By using the metes and bounds portion of this description or by relying upon the '1169.00 feet,' the property conveyed was approximately 10 acres in area. By using the call to the high water line, however, the area of the parcel was approximately 14 acres. The trial judge, after admitting extrinsic evidence bearing upon the ambiguities in the deed, found that it was the intent of the administratrix of the Todd estate and of both the Hymans and the Penitentis that 10 acres and no more be conveyed to the Hymans and Penitentis; that the Hymans had sought to quiet their title to lands which were described in their complaint as containing 14 acres; that the Hymans had not sustained the burden of proof 'as to just what lands they do own.' Judgment was entered that the Hymans take nothing by their action. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. (Hyman v. Haun (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 891, 13 Cal.Rptr. 87, [the foregoing facts have been taken from the text of this opinion].)
Helen G. Haun then commenced the present action to quiet her title to the four-acre parcel which was the subject of dispute in the prior action (i. e., those four acres which were embraced within the high water line description of the deed to the Hymans and Penitentis, but not within the metes and bounds description thereof.) Her complaint specifically alleged that the Hymans were estopped, by virtue of the prior judgment, from asserting title to the four-acre parcel. The Hymans cross-complained for a judgment quieting their title to the 14-acre tract subject of the prior action.
The court below concluded that it was bound by the decision in the prior action that the deed from the Todd estate to the Hymans and Penitentis was intended to convey no more than 10 acres. It also concluded however, that since the prior decision did not determine where the Hymans' 10 acres were located, or, conversely, where Helen G. Haun's four acres were located, it was not estopped to decide this issue. The court found in this regard that no evidence had been introduced showing an intent to locate the Hymans' 10 acres on any ground other than that described by the metes and bounds description in the deed from the Todd estate. The court accordingly quieted Helen G. Haun's title to the four-acre parcel which was excluded from this description, but embraced within the description based upon the call to the high water mark. The court also awarded her $217 compensatory damages and $1,000 punitive damages for the Hymans' trespass upon this property.
Appellants' arguments relate to the merits of the boundary dispute, to the award of exemplary damages, and to the effect of the decision in the prior action. This latter point will be discussed first for the reason that if the decision in the prior action is effective as a collateral estoppel, the merits of the boundary dispute will never be reached.
Appellants' sole contention relative to the effect of the prior decision is that the trial court in that case was unable to determine what party owned what land and accordingly entered a judgment holding only that appellants should take nothing by their action. Appellants assert that such a decision cannot be deemed a judgment on the merits and that the court in the present action was therefore free to grant appellants the relief sought under their cross-complaint and quiet their title to the entire 14-acre parcel subject of the prior action. This contention is without merit.
It is settled that a judgment in a prior action 'operates as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues * * * as were actually litigated and determined in the first action.' (Todhunter v. Smith (1934) 219 Cal. 690, 695, 28 P.2d 916, 918.) If title or interest in real property was at issue in a former action, the judgment is conclusive in later proceedings involving the same title or interest. (Seidell v. Anglo-California Trust Co. (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 913, 918, 132 P.2d 12; Strickland v. Calancorporation, Ltd. (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 488, 494, 319 P.2d 737; Freeze v. Salot (1954) 122 Cal.App.2d 561, 564-566, 266 P.2d 140.) A prior action may establish the nonexistence as well as the existence of a fact (Yates v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 298, 335-336, 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1 L.Ed.2d 1356), and a simple judgment in a quiet title action in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Franklin Mint Co. v. Manatt
...from the underlying proceedings to prove that the same issues were tried and determined in that action. 9 (See Haun v. Hyman (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 615, 619, 36 Cal.Rptr. 84 ["a party relying upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel has the burden of proving that a particular issue was actua......
-
Williams v. Weisser
...light on his motives and good faith. It concluded that defendant acted with malice, as that concept was explained in Haun v. Hyman, 223 Cal.App.2d 615, 620, 36 Cal.Rptr. 84. The evidence supports the court's findings and On appeal defendant claims that the trial court was not entitled to di......
-
Trammell v. Western Union Tel. Co.
...as a motive and willingness to vex, harass, annoy or injure. (Richardson, supra, at p. 245, 102 Cal.Rptr. 507; Haun v. Hyman, (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 615, 620, 36 Cal.Rptr. 84.) 'But malice in fact, sufficient to support an award of punitive damages on the basis of malice as that term is used......
-
Goshgarian v. George
...or under circumstances of great hardship or oppression, it is clear that punitive damages may be awarded." (Haun v. Hyman (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 615, 620, 36 Cal.Rptr. 84.) Cross-defendant's claim that the judgment rendered as to the second cross-complaint established that punitive damages a......