Richmond v. Dofflemyer
Decision Date | 14 May 1980 |
Citation | 105 Cal.App.3d 745,164 Cal.Rptr. 727 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Janette RICHMOND, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. Robert T. DOFFLEMYER et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants; David Stillwell and Donald Stillwell, Defendants, Cross-defendants and Respondents. Civ. 3854. |
This is an appeal by the defendants and cross-complainants, Robert T. Dofflemyer, Robert T. Dofflemyer, Trustee, 1 John c. Dofflemyer, Virginia S. Dofflemyer and William T. Dofflemyer II, from an interlocutory judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Janette C. Richmond, and in favor of the defendants and cross-defendants, David C. Stillwell and Donald M. Stillwell, in an action for the partition of 4,700 acres of land in Tulare County known as the Ward Ranch.
The complaint filed by Richmond sought a partition of the Ward Ranch in kind. The answer filed by the Stillwell defendants conceded that the partition sought by the plaintiff was fair and equitable and sought a partition to themselves in kind. The answer and cross-complaint filed by the Dofflemyer defendants also sought a partition of the property asking that the property be sold and the proceeds divided among the parties but, in the alternative, asking that the property be partitioned in kind as set forth in their answer and cross-complaint.
All of the parties by their pleadings admitted that they were the owners of the property as tenants in common and admitted that their respective interests in the property were as alleged in the complaint.
The case was tried for five days before the court, after which the court awarded Janette Richmond substantially what she had prayed for. It also awarded certain portions of the ranch to the Stillwells. It then gave all of the parties 30 days to present to the court a plan concerning the disposition of the remainder of the property, none was presented, and on January 18, 1978, a referee was appointed by the court to recommend to the court to whom and the manner in which the remainder of the real property should be partitioned.
This case appears to be the outgrowth of a quarrel between the two branches of the Dofflemyer family over the proper disposition of the Ward Ranch. W. Todd Dofflemyer had two children, a son, Robert T. Dofflemyer, and a daughter, Frances Stillwell. The law suit involved a dispute between Frances' side of the family and Robert's side of the family. Frances' children (Richmond and the Stillwells) wanted partition in kind; Robert and his children wanted to sell the ranch and divide the proceeds among the parties in proportion to their interest in the property.
All of the parties to this action own a specified, undivided percentage interest in the Ward Ranch.
Robert T. Dofflemyer, 18.991250 percent individually Robert T. Dofflemyer, 25.965000 percent Trustee etc John C. Dofflemyer, 6.008750 percent William T. Dofflemyer II 6.008750 percent Virginia S. Dofflemyer 6.008750 percent Janette S. Richmond 12.339166 percent David C. Stillwell 12.339167 percent Donald M. Stillwell 12.339167 percent ---------- Total 100.000000 percent
In addition to their undivided interest in the real property, each of the parties owns shares in the Hawkeye Ditch Company, a mutual water company, holding a low flow water right on the Kaweah River which water is used to irrigate the permanent pasture portion of the Ward Ranch. The valuation of the lands comprising the permanent pasture was based on the assumption of an adequate water right through the Hawkeye Ditch Company. All of the stock of the Hawkeye Ditch Company is owned by the parties as follows:
No. of Shares Percentage Trust 23 25.55% Robert 16 5/8 18.47% John 5 5/8 6.25% Virginia 5 5/8 6.25% William 5 5/8 6.25% Janette 11 1/8 12.36% Donald 11 1/8 12.36% David 11 1/4 12.51% Total 90 shares 100%
The trial court made the following finding about the value of the Ward ranch.
Since the death of W. Todd Dofflemyer the Dofflemyer litigants have operated the property along with other contiguous properties owned by Robert Dofflemyer and his family as a cattle ranch.
In 1972 Richmond and her husband acquired 40 acres known as Bohatch, adjacent to the Ward Ranch sections 22 and 28 known as the Indian and Pohot Fields. The Richmonds use the existing road in these adjacent sections to get to their home. Thereafter, Richmond invested approximately $50,000 in building her home and other related improvements on Bohatch and over $5,000 in improving and building the roadway across Indian and Pohot Fields, including realignment, grading, bulldozing, culverts, gutters and surfacing with aggregate. Richmond and her husband have maintained the road since it was built. Richmond also invested approximately $12,000 in a water supply on Pohot.
Subsequently, to settle the disputes occurring between Richmond and Robert Dofflemyer, Richmond filed this action to partition the Ward Ranch. At trial, Richmond requested the court award her the Indian and Pohot Fields "to secure the road and keep it available for that purpose." Since the found value of the Indian and Pohot Fields was less than her full entitlement, Richmond also asked that she be awarded enough land in section 18 to make up her entitlement. Section 18 is located at the northeastern tip of the Ward Ranch. She also requested that she be awarded a permanent easement over sections 24, 25, 26 and 27 in Township 17 South Range 27 East, and over section 19 in Township 17 South Range 27 East, which easement generally follows a roadway maintained by the California Division of Forestry for firefighting purposes. The trial court granted Richmond's request.
David Stillwell testified that he purchased the Boas Minnow Farm in Woodlake, California in 1976. He requested that the court award him the river bottom land which he intended to utilize in his business. He also requested that the court award him all of the permanent pasture in sections 2 and 35 because the permanent pasture might possibly come into future use in expanding his fish husbandry operation. However, the lands requested by David were worth more than his proportionate share of the Ward Ranch. Therefore, with the consent of Donald Stillwell, the court awarded these portions of sections 2 and 35 to David and Donald in undivided interests as tenants in common and further ordered that they be awarded enough of the land in section 26 immediately to the north of section 35 to complete the partition to them.
Robert Dofflemyer testified that he and his family owned and operated the Becquette Ranch, consisting of 2,040 acres of land in sections 10, 14, 15 and part of section 22 immediately north of and adjacent to the Ward Ranch and that he and his wife owned 463 acres of land immediately to the east of the Ward Ranch.
Robert testified he had expended $71,870.70 of his own funds in leveling and improving the lands comprising the permanent pasture.
John Dofflemyer is a part owner of the Becquette Ranch contiguous to the Indian Field. He testified as to how all of the Ward Ranch is used during the year. He testified in particular that without the permanent pasture, the cow and calf operation would have to be reduced by 50 to 65 percent; that he can run 210-220 head of cows in each of the permanent pastures and that he could not economically operate a cow and calf operation without the permanent pasture. He joined his father in recommending to the court that the entire ranch be sold rather than partitioned.
Richard Hopper, the appraiser called as a witness by Richmond, testified the entire ranch would sell for more if divided into smaller parcels than it would sell for if sold as a whole. This testimony was confirmed by Robert Miller, a farm adviser for the University of California, who was called as a witness by the Dofflemyers. Charles Brown, the appraiser called by the Dofflemyers, was not asked questions upon this subject and offered no testimony on it.
In its interlocutory judgment decreeing partition the court made the following orders:
In 1976 the Legislature enacted chapter 73 of the Statutes of 1976 codifying...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Canavin v. Pacific Southwest Airlines
...(Elbert Ltd. v. Clare, 40 Cal.2d 498, 501, 254 P.2d 20; Jameson v. Hayward, 106 Cal. 682, 687-688, 39 P. 1078; Richmond v. Dofflemyer, 105 Cal.App.3d 745, 766, 164 Cal.Rptr. 727; Penasquitos, Inc. v. Holladay, 27 Cal.App.3d 356, 358, 103 Cal.Rptr. 717; Elbert, Ltd. v. Federated etc. Propert......
-
People v. Casa Blanca Convalescent Homes, Inc.
...findings as to individual items of evidence. Such a detailed evidentiary analysis is not required by law. (Richmond v. Dofflemyer, 105 Cal.App.3d 745, 764, 164 Cal.Rptr. 727.) Only where a trial court fails to make findings as to a material issue which would fairly disclose the determinatio......
-
Nelson v. Nelson
...to ‘do equity’ and to make a fair and just division of the property or proceeds between the parties. Richmond v. Dofflemyer , 105 Cal.App.3d 745, 766, 164 Cal.Rptr. 727, 739 (1980) ; Miller v. Miller , 222 Kan. 317, 564 P.2d 524, 527 (1977). In exercising its discretion in a partition actio......
-
Eli v. Eli
...disfavored." Schnell v. Schnell, 346 N.W.2d 713, 716 (N.D.1984) (citing Berg, 181 N.W.2d at 735 and Richmond v. Dofflemyer, 105 Cal.App.3d 745, 164 Cal.Rptr. 727, 733 (1980)). ¶11 The burden of proof to establish great prejudice such that partition is not feasible rests with the party seeki......