Hemmerling v. Tomlev, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1967 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 432 P.2d 697 Arthur E. HEMMERLING et al., Cross-complainants and Appellants, v. TOMLEV, INC., et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents. L.A. 28980. |
Richards, Watson & Hemnerling, Clifford A. Hemmerling and Ronald M. Greenberg, Los Angeles, for cross-complainants and appellants.
Baird, Holley, Baird & Galen, James Michael Welch, Los Angeles, and Leonard B. Hankins, Long Beach, for cross-defendants and respondents.
Harry S. Fenton, Sacramento, R. B. Pegram, Richard L. Franck, Charles E. Spencer, Jr., and Robert W. Vidor, Los Angeles, as amici curiae.
This action involves the condemnation of approximately 1,000 square feet of land (parcel 4) located east of Anaheim in Orange County. The parcel was owned in undivided interests by defendants Arthur E. Hemmerling and Hulda M. Hemmerling, a group of corporations, and Holly Wade Davidson. The Hemmerlings appeal from the judgment apportioning the condemnation award.
Parcel 4 was owned in common by defendants subject to an agreement executed by them or their predecessors in interest on February 5, 1926. All of the parties to the agreement individually owned other land in the vicinity of parcel 4. The 1926 agreement provided for the formation of a voluntary, nonprofit association whose members would be the owners of parcel 4. The association's purpose was to construct and operate a water well and pumping plant on parcel 4 and an irrigation pipeline system from the well to the lands of the members. The agreement set forth the interests of the parties in parcel 4 and provided that each party should share in the costs of installation and maintenance of the well and plant in the proportion of his acreage to the total acreage of all the members. A 1939 amendment provided that the interests of the parties in the water system were appurtenant to their respective separately owned lands. Any party could elect not to take his share of water, and during any period he so elected, he would not be obligated to pay any of the costs of operating the system.
Before the condemnation action was commenced, both the corporations and Davidson elected not to take water from the system until further notice. At the time of the trial their lands were being used for industrial purposes, and no likelihood appears that they will again be used for purposes requiring irrigation. The Hemmerlings, however, continued to take water from the system until the time of trial and were the only owners using water on the date of the filing of the complaint.
In condemning parcel 4 for freeway purposes plaintiff elected to proceed under section 1246.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that the total amount of the award for the property is to be first determined as between the plaintiff and all defendants and then apportioned among the defendants in further proceedings.
The parties stipulated 'that the total compensation to be paid for the taking of parcel 4, and all interests therein, is the sum of $9,450' and waived findings on this issue. After the trial on the issue of apportionment the court found that the Hemmerlings, the corporations, and Davidson were entitled to share in the award in the proportion that the separate acreage of each bore to the total of their combined separate acreage.
The Hemmerlings contend that the trial court erred in failing to value the water easement of each party separately from his respective fee interests in parcel 4 (see Code Civ.Proc., § 1248) and in failing to make a finding on the issue of severance damages. They also assert that the trial court erred in disregarding their valuation evidence since it was uncontradicted and unimpeached.
The water right of each party to the 1926 agreement was an easement appurtenant to his own land separate from his interest in common with the other parties in the fee of parcel 4. The fact that each party owned a fee interest in both his separate dominant estate and in the servient estate did not extinguish the easements by merger, for the ownership interests in the two estates were not coextensive. (Cheda v. Bodkin (1916) 173 Cal. 7, 17, 158 P. 1025; see Porto v. Vosti (1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 395, 397, 288 P.2d 618.)
Since the condemnation of parcel 4 extinguished the easements, defendants were entitled to compensation for them. When, as in this case, the easements are appurtenant and can be used only to provide water for irrigation of the dominant estates, the value of each easement is the diminution in the market value of the dominant tenement caused by its loss. (People ex rel. Dept. of Public Works v. Logan (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 581, 586, 17 Cal.Rptr. 674, and cases cited; see Jahr, Eminent Domain (1957) § 160; 4 Nichols, Easement (3d ed. 1962) § 12.41; 1 Orgel, Valuation Under the Law of Eminent Domain (2d ed. 1953) § 111, at p. 476, fn. 36; cf. United States v. 4.105 Acres of Land, etc. (N.D.Cal.1946) 68 F.Supp. 279, 292.)
Section 1248, subdivision 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court must assess the 'value of the property sought to be condemned, * * * and of each and every separate estate or interest therein; * * *' Accordingly, the trial court should have assessed the values of the easements separately from the values of the respective fee interests in parcel 4. It does not appear from the findings of fact and conclusions of law that the trial court did so. Moreover, we may not infer a finding adverse to the Hemmerlings on the value of their easement, for they 'made a written request for a specific finding' on that issue. (Code Civ.Proc., § 634; Culbertson v. Cizek (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 451, 465, 37 Cal.Rptr. 548; Mock v. Shulman (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 263, 268, 38 Cal.Rptr. 39.) They requested that the court appraise the fair market value of their appurtenant right to use water at $9,000. This request was not one for a finding of an evidentiary fact (see South Santa Clara Water etc. Dist. v. Johnson (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 388, 404--405, 41 Cal.Rptr. 846), but for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
South Bay Irr. Dist. v. California-American Water Co.
...i.e., City of Torrance v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.3d 195, 207, fn. 8, 127 Cal.Rptr. 609, 545 P.2d 1313; Hemmerling v. Tomlev, Inc., 67 Cal.2d 572, 576, 63 Cal.Rptr. 1, 432 P.2d 697; and Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Public Util. Com., 62 Cal.2d 634, 647--648, 44 Cal.Rptr. 1, 401 P.2d 353, which......
-
Rafeiro v. American Employers' Ins. Co.
...in the absence of an appeal or other modification of the findings in the earlier action (cf. Hemmerling v. Tomlev, Inc. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 572, 576, 63 Cal.Rptr. 1, 432 P.2d 697; Centerville Amusement Co. v. Salih (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 106, 112, 18 Cal.Rptr. 671; and Andrews v. Cunningham (19......
-
SCI Cal. Funeral Servs., Inc. v. Five Bridges Found.
...167, 101 Cal.Rptr. 880, 496 P.2d 1248( Harman ) [easements of ingress and egress]; [203 Cal.App.4th 566]Hemmerling v. Tomlev, Inc. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 572, 575, 63 Cal.Rptr. 1, 432 P.2d 697( Hemmerling ) [easement to provide water for irrigation]; Redevelopment Agency v. Tobriner (1989) 215 Ca......
-
SCI California Funeral Servs., Inc. v. Five Bridges Found.
...101 Cal.Rptr. 880, 496 P.2d 1248 ( Harman ) [easements of ingress and egress]; [203 Cal.App.4th 566] Hemmerling v. Tomlev, Inc. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 572, 575, 63 Cal.Rptr. 1, 432 P.2d 697 ( Hemmerling ) [easement to provide water for irrigation]; Redevelopment Agency v. Tobriner (1989) 215 Cal.......