Two cases...priority of calls...intent...collateral estoppel...

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Hyman v. Haun, 191 Cal. App. 2d 891, 05/09/1961
HAUN v. HYMAN, 223 Cal. App. 2d 615, 12/20/1963

These are companion cases involving the same riverfront piece of property at the southeast corner of the Noyo River bridge on Route 1 in Fort Bragg.

In a nutshell William K. Dodge wrote a Deed description which begins at a point on the East R/W of Route 1 then runs northerly 1169' to the high water line of the Noyo River, thence along the high water line southeasterly to an east-west line thence back to the point of beginning creating a parcel of 10.00 acres. The data Dodge used for the high water line is an old meander line of record. The description was cooked up from record data. Sarcastic comment...no money to survey and do it right but plenty of money to have two trials and two appeals.

Later Maguire surveys the parcel and finds that Dodge's meander line is over 100' from the actual ordinary high water mark. If the actual ordinary high water mark is used then the parcel amounts to about 14 acres, oops.

Hyman sues Haun to quiet his title in the 14 acres. Since there is such a large discrepancy between the Deed distance along the east line of the parcel of 1169' versus measured 1293' to the ordinary high water mark and the Dodge meander line is substantially different from the actual OHWM the Court admits extrinsic evidence on the true intent of the parties. Dodge testifies that his instructions were to cut out a 10 acre parcel. The court refuses to quiet Hyman's title to 14 acres saying he is only entitled to 10 acres because he did not sustain his burden of proof to more than that. The court declines to answer the question of where exactly the 10 acres is located.

Normally we hold monuments over distances to which Justice Shottky explains..."The basic rule of construction of the description in a deed is that the construction must accord as nearly as possible with the intent of the parties but be limited to that manifested in the language of the deed. (3 American Law of Property, § 12.110; 15 Cal.Jur.2d, Deeds, § 173.) It should also be noted that any rules for awarding priorities, as for example, monuments over distances, have been developed as a means for determining the intention of the parties and are rules of construction rather than rules of property. (3 American Law of Property, § 12.115.)"

Despite losing the first case Hyman trespasses on the 4 acre strip in dispute, builds a road and removes gravel. Haun sues to quiet her title on the 4 acre strip. Hyman attempts to retry the entire case. The Trial Court in this second case refuses to reopen the question of whether Hyman is entitled to 14 acres citing collateral estoppel. The Court quieted Haun's title to the 4 acre strip and Hyman appeals. One argument he makes is that the first Judgment wasn't really a Judgment (therefore no collateral estoppel) because the court merely declined to quiet Hyman's title. The appellate court disagrees and affirms the second judgment.

The final answer in this case is that a distance can control over a monument if that better fits the intentions of the parties. I would take this as a fact case, that is the decision is one of determining facts as opposed to the law. They certainly aren't overturning the priority of calls.

[LS_8750]

Cool.
Can you post the decisions?

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Here are PDFs of the two Opinions plus the relevant Assessor Maps.

I obtained a copy of the diagram referenced in 191 Cal App 2d 891 from the Witkin Law Library yesterday but left it at home. It's pretty fuzzy anyway. It looks like a D sized map reduced to about 3x4. The AP maps show it good enough.

The California Courts pays for a LexisNexis subscription for searching California published opinions. It is free to the public. It has pretty powerful search capability:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/

[Jim Frame]

Did the court address the notion that the call to the river implies riparian access as being a substantial intent of the parties? I don't understand why the court decided to hold acreage -- a pretty lowly call -- over something seemingly as important as river frontage.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

What happened in this case is related to the way it blundered it's way through the Court system.

The first trial court seems to have regarded the large discrepancy in area and distances to have created an ambiguity which allowed for the admission of extrinsic evidence to determine intent. The first Judgment determined the intent to transfer a 10 acre parcel but didn't determine where it is located on the ground and what about the other 4 acres? The parties then switched, the first defendant became the plaintiff in the second trial suing to quiet title to the 4 acres between the meander line and the OHWM.

Hyman could've claimed a 10 acre parcel further north but what happened probably fit the most elements in the original deed description although it disregards the call to the high water line.