Buehler v. Reilly

Plaintiff and cross-defendant, Lena Buehler, appeals from a judgment that plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction and that she take nothing; that defendants’ and cross-complainants’ “right, title and interest in and to said joint and common roadway ... be quieted for the joint use of cross-complainants and cross-defendant”; that cross-defendant be “forever enjoined and debarred from asserting the claim that said road is owned by cross-defendant”; and that cross-complainants own “an easement over, across and along the following described parcels of land in Tract 4600, as per map recorded in Book 49, page 93, of Maps, Records of Los Angeles County, California: (Description of the driveway along the southerly and easterly boundaries of appellant’s Lot 7) for road purposes jointly and in common with cross-defendant; that said easement is appurtenant to Lot 8 of said Tract 4600 and to the portion thereof owned by cross-complainants, and cross-complainants have an easement in gross over said (driveway) . . . which they may use for the benefit of their residential property, which includes not only said portion of Lot 8 of Tract 4600 but also Lot 3 of Harvey and Lindleys Addition to Whittier, which is owned by cross-complainants, and that cross-complainants have the right to use said roadway without interference from cross-defendant, and that cross-defendant be forever enjoined and debarred from asserting the claim that said easement and road is owned solely by cross-defendant” and that defendants and cross-complainants recover their costs. (Emphasis added in portion of judgment above quoted.)

Respondents’ portion of Lot 8 is directly east of appellant’s portion thereof and her Lot 7, upon which she resides. The west line of Lot 7 borders Alta Avenue, which is a dedicated street ending in a cul-de-sac at the northwest corner of appellant’s Lot 7 and the southwest corner of respondents’ Lot 3. The driveway here in dispute runs from the southwest corner of Lot 7 around the south and east curved boundaries of said Lot 7 to its northeast corner. Respondents’ portion of Lot 8 has an area of about 20,000 square feet. In December, 1954, respondents added to their property Lot 3 of Harvey and Lindleys Addition to Whittier, which is over 100,000

The record does not show the size of the respondents’ avocado grove to the east of their said Lots 8 and 3, or the length of the dirt road across said grove from respondents’ garage to Beverly. The findings are, however, that said grove is accessible to the driveway here involved “but there was and is no evidence to show that any person entered the joint and common roadway established by the parties in October of 1936 from the said dirt roadway ...”

It was stipulated at the trial that the roadway from Lot 8 to Alta Avenue will not be used for ingress to or egress from the avocado grove and will be used “only for the ingress and egress to their residence property and garage and Lot 8 which is a part thereof, in the manner heretofore used by them, and that an injunction may issue enjoining the use of said roadway from Lot 8 to the Street of Alta for purposes other than the servicing of and ingress and egress to and from their said properties in the manner heretofore used by them”; that “at the present time Lot 8 does not have any structure thereon; has been landscaped and is being

No issue is raised by the pleadings, at the trial, or on this appeal, as to respondents’ ownership of an easement appurtenant to their portion of Lot 8 of Tract 4600. Respondents resided on said portion of Lot 8 from 1928 until 1955, and during that period their only means of ingress and egress was over said easement. The judgment is claimed to be erroneous only with respect to the “easement in gross . . . for the benefit of (respondents’) residential property, which includes . . . Lot 3 of Harvey and Lindleys Addition to Whittier ...”

In 1922 appellant bought Lot 7 and the southwesterly portion of Lot 8, and in 1924 respondents bought the remainder of Lot 8, Tract 4600. The conveyances to each of them referred to the subdivision map, upon which a strip substantially the same as the one here involved was shown as a driveway, and said conveyances were expressly subject to the rights of the owners of all the lots in said tract, to use said strip as a driveway.

In 1936, appellant discovered that respondents’ lawn and curb encroached upon said easement along the common boundary of Lots 7 and 8. On October 10, 1936, they executed three separate documents.

First, a quitclaim deed to the respondents and to appellant and her late husband “as joint owners” was executed by all the owners of lots in Tract 4600, including the grantees. The quitclaim deed released all their respective “right, title and interest in and to: A strip of land . . . (description of the portion of the driveway east of Lot 5) . . . said strip of land by endorsement upon said map having been reserved for the perpetual and irrevocable use of the owners of each of the lots shown upon said map and to their heirs and assigns as appurtenant to each of the said lots.”

Second, an agreement, reciting that appellant and her late husband were the owners of Lot 7 and a portion of Lot 8; that the respondents were the owners of the remainder of Lot 8; and that the owners of the other lots in Tract 4600 had quit-claimed to appellant, her late husband and respondents their

Third, a document signed by appellant, her late husband, and respondents, reciting that they have established the common boundary line of their respective properties in Tract No. 4600, and

“Whereas, said agreement reserves for road purposes a strip of land and grants unto the respective parties hereto the common use of said strip of land for road purposes, and

■ “Whereas, the' construction of said road upon said strip requires the construction of a retaining wall along the Southerly side thereof, ... .” By said agreement respondent agreed to and did pay the cost of a retaining wall, and appellant, her late husband, and respondents agreed to and did bear equally the expenses incidental to “the preparation and fulfillment of this agreement and the aforementioned agreement of October 10, 1936, such as fees and charges paid to the Title Company, Attorney, Engineering and Surveying expenses, and Recording fees ...”

The driveway as so improved was used by appellant, her husband and the respondents from 1936 to 1955, while they resided on Lots 7 and 8 of Tract 4600.

By the quitclaim deed of October 10, 1936, appellant, her husband and respondents became joint owners of the fee title to and the easement over the easterly two-thirds of the driveway strip. The easement theretofore existing over that portion of the driveway was thus merged in the fee. Therefore, as to that portion of the driveway, we need not consider the arguments based upon the original deeds by which the parties acquired Lots 7 and 8 in 1922 and 1924.

Prom respondents' use of said driveway in connection with Lot 3 since 1955 no grant of an easement can be implied. No claim is or can be made that said driveway is a way of necessity for the enjoyment of Lot 3.

The nature and extent of the respondents’ rights in said easterly portion of the driveway is governed by the provisions of the three documents of October 10, 1936, hereinbefore set out, all of which are parts of the same agreement.

That agreement, besides extinguishing the easement created

A written agreement, unless it is ambiguous, must be construed by consideration of its own terms. The meaning and intent thereof is a question of law, and an appellate tribunal is not bound by the trial court’s findings and conclusions respecting such intent and meaning. (Brant v. California Dairies, Inc., 4 Cal.2d 128 , 133 [ 48 P.2d 13 ].)

Where, as in the instant action, the agreement to be so construed recites that the parties are owners of adjoining lots and the agreement grants to each a right of way over a strip on each side of their common boundary line, the law of California is well settled that the easements so created are appurtenant to their adjoining properties. (Hopper v. Barnes, 113 Cal. 636 [ 45 P. 874 ] ; Elliott v. McCombs, 17 Cal. 2d 23 , 29 [ 109 P.2d 329 ] ; Wright v. Best, 19 Cal.2d 368 , 383 [ 121 P.2d 702 ].)

In the instant action, that construction is concurred in by all parties and by the trial judge. However, respondents urged and the court adjudged that, in addition to such ease