Stamas v. County of Madera

Citation795 F.Supp.2d 1047
Decision Date14 June 2011
Docket NumberCase No. CV F 09–0753 LJO SMS.
PartiesMark STAMAS and Judy Castles, Plaintiffs,v.COUNTY OF MADERA, Board of Supervisors of the County of Madera, Gerald Houston, Linda Barlow, Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Michael Richard Johnson, Robert M. Dowd, Laura Anne Wolfe, Raymond L. Carlson, Griswold Lasalle Cobb Dowd and Gin, Hanford, CA, for Plaintiffs.Andrew W. Sorensen, Ryan D. Libke, Emerson, Corey, Sorensen, Church & Libke, Gordon M. Park, Scott M. Reddie, McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte and Carruth LLP, Fresno, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION (Doc. 125, 133, 134)

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

Three motions for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication pursuant to Rule 56 are pending before this Court: (1) Defendants Linda Barlow's and Gerald Houston's motion against plaintiffs Mark Stamas and Judy Castles, (2) Defendant County of Madera's and the Board of Supervisors' motion against plaintiffs Mark Stamas and Judy Castles, and (3) Plaintiff Mark Stamas' and Judy Castles' motion to adjudicate material facts and conclusions of law.

Each party filed an opposition on May 18, 2011. The replies were filed on May 25, 2011. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), this matter was submitted on the pleadings without oral argument, and the hearing set for June 1, 2011 was VACATED. Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, as well as the Court's file, the Court issues the following order.1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Factual Overview

This action involves conflicting claims to an easement or private right-of-way, which was created, modified, or revised over a 120–year time span and ownership of which is in dispute. Plaintiffs claim a right to an easement on Cascadel Road. Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to access to a 60–foot wide street, and not a 12–foot road, which plaintiffs complain County of Madera and the Board of Supervisors (“Madera”) and adjacent property owners, Defendants Gerald Houston and Linda Barlow (Houston/Barlow) now limit plaintiffs. The Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleges the following causes of action:

1. First Cause of Action for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983–Substantive and Procedural Due Process;

2. Second Cause of Action for Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983—Equal Protection;

3. Third Cause of Action for Malicious Prosecution;

4. Fourth Cause of Action for Slander of Title;

5. Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Contract;

6. Sixth Cause of Action for Declaratory relief; and

7. Seventh Cause of Action for Quiet Title.

B. Summary of Pertinent Allegations

The Cascadel Woods Subdivision is located in a mountainous portion of Madera. The subdivision map for Cascadel Woods, Subdivision No. 4, was recorded in Madera County in 1963. Plaintiffs are the owners of Lot 38 of Subdivision No. 4 in the Cascadel Woods Subdivision. Plaintiffs' property abuts Cascadel Road which is the main ingress and egress to the Subdivision. Stamas and Castles have lived there since 1981. Houston and Barlow purchased Lot 1, which is a 10.42 acre parcel, in Cascadel Woods in 2004.

1. Brief History of Cascadel Road

The beginning of Cascadel Road dates back to an 1888 Deed to the County of Fresno.2 This Deed granted to “the County of Fresno, in said state the Right of Way for a Public Road, and all incidents thereto,” as defined by a specific road survey performed in 1888. (Doc. 131–1, Joint Exh. 1.) The Right of Way was defined as a “strip of land sixty feet wide” the location of which was defined by the road survey. The road survey is lost in antiquity, and the precise location of the Right of Way for a Public Road referred to in the 1888 Deed, cannot be determined.3 Madera acknowledges that the 1888 Deed was an accepted dedication of the right of way. (Doc. 133–1, Madera P & A p. 21.)

No history for the road is presented until 1956. In 1956, Madera quitclaimed the Right of Way described in the 1888 Deed to Cascadel Ranch Properties, Inc., the developer of the Cascadel Subdivision. Thus, any interest in the 1888 Right of Way was quit claimed to Cascadel Ranch Properties. (Doc. 131–1, Exh. 5, Quitclaim Deed.) The Cascadel Woods Subdivision, Subdivision no. 4, was recorded in Madera County in 1963. (Doc. 131, Joint facts no. 1) The subdivision map no. 4 shows Cascadel Road terminated at the easterly boundary of the Houston/Barlow property and is shown as a private, not public road.4 (Doc. 131–1, Joint Exh. 29, Jones Decl. ¶ 2.) Page 2 of the subdivision map shows a 60 foot wide right of way ending at the border of Lot 1 and not crossing Lot 1. (Doc. 131–1, Joint Exh. 8.) The map does not depict any road or right of way crossing any portion of Lot no. 1, the present day Houston/Barlow property. (Doc. 131, Joint facts no. 2.) There is no notation on the subdivision map of an abandonment of any public road that may have existed and crossed Lot 1 before the filing of the Subdivision Map.5

Since the time Stamas and Castles moved into their residence in 1981, the width of Cascadel Road between Lot 38 and the entrance to Cascadel Woods has remained substantially the same. It is undisputed that a 60–foot wide, physical road does not cross Lot 1, the Houston/Barlow property, and a 60–foot road has never existed. Instead, a 10–12 foot wide dirt Cascadel Road physically crosses a portion of the Houston/Barstow property. It is undisputed that Cascadel Road as it crossed Lot 1 has always been 10 to 12 feet wide. It is undisputed that this portion of Cascadel Road was not incorporated into the Madera County Highway system.

2. Subsequent conveyances and deeds involving Cascadel Road

After the recordation of the subdivision map in 1963, a series of deeds, quit claims, unrecorded conveyances and late recorded conveyances compound the ownership, rights and the very existence of the 60–foot wide easement across Lot 1.

In 1964, Cascadel Ranch Properties deeded Lot 1 to Three Power Foundation (“3Ps”), which presumably conveyed the entirety of the Lot 1 property, the underlying fee property and the right of way, without any reservation of the right of way across Lot 1. (Doc. 131.–1, Joint Exh. 12, Grant Deed to 3Ps.) On September 5, 1967, 3Ps grant deeded Lot 1 back to Cascadel Ranch Properties, and there is no reservation for the right of way, and presumably conveyed the entirety of the Lot 1 property, the underlying fee property and the right of way. This grant deed was recorded on September 8, 1967. Then on September 11, 1967, Cascadel Ranch Properties quitclaimed a sixty foot right of way, as described in the 1888 Deed, to County of Fresno.6 (Doc. 131–1, Joint Exh. 14.) This deed is recorded on September 18, 1967. On September 12, 1967, Cascadel Ranch Properties deeded Lot 1 to 3Ps, and this grant does not mention the 60 foot right of way. The right of way had been conveyed to Fresno County on September 11, and the Cascadel Ranch Properties conveyance to 3Ps conveyed the underlying fee property, but there is no mention or reservation of the right of way in the deed.7 (Doc. 131–1, Joint Exh. 15.) Then, on November 7, 1967, Madera quitclaimed back to Cascadel Ranch Property the 60–foot right of way (assuming Madera got the right of way in the September 1967 deed) and the deed was recorded on November 20, 1967. (Doc. 131–1, Joint Exh. 16.) By this quit claim, it appears that Madera released any of its interest in the 60 foot right of way back to Cascadel Ranch Property.

On December 22, 1967, Cascadel Ranch Property offered to dedicate the “street right of way” of a 60 foot right of way. (Doc. 131–1, Joint Exh. 17.) This offer of dedication was made in relation to “a deed dated September 18, 1955,” which deed has not been provided to the Court.8 From the documents provided, it appears that Cascadel Ranch Property was not the owner of Lot 1 at the time of the offer of dedication because Lot 1 had been conveyed to 3Ps on September 12, 1967. But it appears that Cascadel Ranch Property was the “owner” of the right of way, because Madera had quitclaimed the right of way to Cascadel Ranch Properties on November 7, 1967 (assuming Madera got the right of way in the September 1967 deed.) The December 22 offer of dedication by Cascadel Ranch Properties to Madera was not recorded until 1969 (1969 Offer of Dedication”), and it is undisputed that the 1969 Offer of Dedication has never been accepted by Madera.

On April 29, 1968, 3Ps deeded Lot 1 to New Life Foundation. (Doc. 131–1, Joint Exh. No 18.) Whatever interest 3Ps held was transferred to New Life Foundation, and there is no mention of the right of way in the deed. The parties agree that 3Ps owned the underlying fee to the road and therefore that is what was transferred to New Life Foundation. On June 13, 1968, both deeds (the deed of September 12, 1967 granting Lot 1 from Cascadel Ranch Property to 3Ps, and the deed of April 29, 1968 granting Lot 1 from 3Ps to New Life Foundation) were recorded.

In 1972, the Houston/Barlow predecessor in property, Ralph and Helen Walton, acquired Lot 1 from New Life Foundation. (Doc. 131–1, Exh. 19.) Lot 1 had an exception for the 60 foot wide roadway. The 1972 Deed granted Lot 1 to the Ralph and Helen Walton, and excepted a 60 foot right of way from the land transfer:

For valuable consideration ... Cascadel New Life Foundation, a corporation hereby grants to RALPH WALTON and HELEN WALTON, husband and wife the real property in the County of Madera, State of California, described as Lot No. 1 of Tract No. 119, Cascadel Woods Subdivision No. 4, ... EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion thereof which may lie within the bounds of the 60 foot road right of way offered to the County of Madera for dedication to public use by Cascadel Ranch Properties, Inc. recorded on July 11, 1969 [the 1969 Offer of Dedication] ...

The 60 foot Right–Of–Way exception runs with every subsequent deed in the chain of title to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Fabricius v. Tulare Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • June 19, 2017
    ...protected by the Constitution; (2) a deprivation of the interest by the government; and (3) lack of process.'" Stamas v. Cnty. of Madera, 795 F.Supp.2d 1047, 1077 (E.D. Cal. 2011), quoting Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir. 2008). "[P]rocedural due process claims do not 'deal ......
  • Hardesty v. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • March 25, 2013
    ...of records regarding the Horseshoe Mine or any of the other facts contained in the two declarations. See Stamas v. County of Madera, 795 F.Supp.2d 1047, 1060 (E.D.Cal.2011) (taking judicial notice that declarations were filed in other litigation but declining to take judicial notice of the ......
  • Creamer v. City of Tulare
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • August 29, 2016
    ...by the Constitution; (2) a deprivation of the interest by the government; and (3) lack of process.'" Stamas v. Cnty. of Madera, 795 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 1077 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir. 2008)). "[P]rocedural due process claims do not 'deal with th......
  • Fabricius v. Tulare Cnty., Case No. 1:15-cv-01779-LJO-EPG
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • March 15, 2018
    ...protected by the Constitution; (2) a deprivation of the interest by the government; and (3) lack of process.'" Stamas v. Cnty. of Madera, 795 F.Supp.2d 1047, 1077 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir. 2008)). "[P]rocedural due process claims do not 'deal......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT