Estribou v. Alma Investment Co.

California Court of Appeal Jun 16, 1954 No. Docket Nos. 4697, 4698Published

Before: Griffin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that tax deeds based on an assessment of "mining rights" were invalid due to an uncertain and indefinite property description, and that statutes of limitation do not bar an owner from proving that tax proceedings did not apply to their specific interest in the land.

Issues

Whether an assessment of "mining rights" provides a sufficiently certain description to support a tax deed for oil and gas interests.
Whether statutes of limitation bar an owner from challenging the validity of tax proceedings that do not apply to their property interest.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the description, under the circumstances indicated, did not appear to sufficiently describe the property assessed, and which was sold.”

“These limitation statutes apply to the question of the invalidity of the tax proceedings and do not affect the right of an owner to show- that the proceedings, even if valid, did not apply to nor affect the land or interest in land which he owned.”

[62]

GRIFFIN, J.

These consolidated actions to quiet title involve the same legal questions in relation to certain claimed gas and oil interests in real property in Kern County.

In the Estribou case the plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of an undivided one-half interest in all oil, gas, and other hydrocarbon substances within or underlying the described land. In the case of L and B Producing and Drilling Company (hereinafter referred to as L & B) the plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners of an undivided 4% per cent interest therein. In both cases the defendants denied the title of plaintiffs and filed a cross-complaint alleging their title.

The facts show that one Mclnerny owned the fee and all mineral rights to the property prior to 1928; that on January 24, 1928, he conveyed of record a 6% per cent of all oil and gas rights to Hillman-Long, Inc., a corporation; that all of the interests of plaintiff L & B arise from this conveyance; that on March 24, 1926, Mclnerny, still being the owner of the fee and remaining oil and gas interests, conveyed 4 per cent more of his interest to one Womack; that this interest descended to certain parties who are cross-defendants in the original action by L & B, but who defaulted; that on May 12, 1942, Mclnerny, then owner of the fee and 89% per cent of the oil and gas interests, conveyed them to plaintiff Estribou; that on May 25,

1942,

Estribou sold all of his interest to one Allen, except a reservation of ‘ ‘ one-half of the oil, gas, or other hydrocarbon substances contained in or under this land”; that Allen sold all of his interest to one Ola Cronk; that in March,

1944,

the ownership being as above stated, there was made the assessment on which defendants’ tax deeds were predicated; that at this time the assessor assessed to Mclnerny the following: “50 per cent

mining rights

E %> Lot 1, Section 22, Township 298, Range 27E, M. D. B. & M.” (italics ours); that at the same time the assessor assessed to Ola Cronk the balance of the land and all interests therein (which tax was fully paid); and that subsequently the taxes on the foregoing assessment to Mclnerny of the “50 per cent

Estribou v. Alma Investment Co.

AI Brief

GRIFFIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief