-
We need to distinguish between law and fact…
We need to distinguish between questions of law and questions of fact. I have read a lot of cases over the past few years and this is one of the key things I have picked up from it.
If a Deed description is the north 200 feet of Lot 100 then the construction that description is a question of law. Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to change the description. Then the question of fact is where is the north line of Lot 100 located, a much broader range of evidence is admissible to determine this fact. The location of the south line of the north 200 feet is also a question of fact to which a broad range of evidence is admissible.
Now suppose Lot 100 is bounded on the north by an abandoned street. There are three possibilities: 1) the 200 feet is measured from the south line of the street (the rebuttable presumption in California) and the grant includes the 200 feet plus half the street (another rebuttable presumption in California), 2) the 200 feet is measured from the south line of the street and does not include half the street (if the presumption has been rebutted), or 3) the 200 feet is measured from the center line of the street (if both presumptions have been rebutted). The description is patently ambiguous and extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine how the original parties interpreted the Deed description effectively converting this to a question of fact.
120 DEEDS 3,185
120III Construction and Operation 1,019
120III(B) Property Conveyed 142 120 ->118 Evidence. 19421. Baker v. Ramirez
Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California. April 1, 1987 190 Cal.App.3d 1123
Headnote: Evidence supported finding that grantor did not intend to convey any portion of abandoned street in conveyance of 100-foot right-of-way to railroad, so that right-of-way began at south edge of abandoned street, and did not include south half of abandoned street in addition to the described property; grant of specific number of feet carved out of contiguous lots evidenced grantor’s intent that street not be included in conveyance, and evidence indicated that grantor planted orange grove to south line of abandoned street and that railroad placed survey stakes beginning at edge of abandoned street to mark four corners of right-of-way. West’s Ann.Cal.Civ.Code å¤1112.Document Summary: Landowner filed complaint to quiet title and for declaratory relief, injunction, and damages based on adjoining landowners’ removal of two rows of orange trees from disputed 20‰ÛÒfoot wide strip of property, and adjoining landowners filed cross-complaint against railroad which had deeded disputed strip to them. The Superior Court, Tulare County, Nathaniel O. Bradley, J., determined that landowner held title to disputed strip, directed verdict against railroad for breach of contract in the amount of $1,067.14, awarded actual damages in favor of landowner for $22,683, declared a mistrial on the issue of punitive damages, and doubled jury verdict to $45,366. Adjoining landowners appealed. The Court of Appeal, Franson, Acting P.J., held that: (1) conveyance to adjoining landowners of lots located south of abandoned street included disputed strip; (2) grant of relief to landowner from proposed stipulation waiving adverse possession claim was not…
120 DEEDS 3,185
120III Construction and Operation 1,019
120III(A) General Rules of Construction 297
120 ->110 Questions for jury. 5294. Ames v. Irvine Co.
Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California. December 5, 1966 246 Cal.App.2d 832 Headnote: Construction of a deed, on its face, including description therein, involves question of law.Document Summary: Action by administrators of estate of patentee to obtain judgment declaring the estate and heirs of patentee to be owners of 7/11ths interest in tract of land claimed entirely by successor in interest of patentee’s grantee under a particular deed. The Superior Court of Orange County, Stephen K. Tamura,
J., granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied the administrators’ motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in alternative, for summary judgment, and the administrators appealed. The Court of Appeal, Coughlin, J., held that reference in patentee’s deed to his grantee to original grant and to decrees of confirmation in United States District Court for more particular description and that quantity given by United States District Court be quantity conveyed by deed qualified reference in deed to property as ‰Û÷Rancho of Santiago containing four leagues’ and deed conveyed all of 10.7 square leagues of land patentee received under Mexican grant which was affirmed by…
Log in to reply.