Hoffman v. Van Duzee

California Court of Appeal Mar 12, 1937 No. Civ. S. C. 22Published

Before: Shinn

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the recorded map of the subdivision is presumed correct and controls property boundaries unless proven otherwise by clear evidence. Because the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to impeach the map or identify original survey monuments, the trial court's judgment quieting title based on the map's dimensions was affirmed.

Issues

Whether a recorded map used in a conveyance controls the boundaries of the property conveyed.
Whether the defendants met their burden of proof to impeach the accuracy of the recorded map through a subsequent survey and unidentified stakes.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Dimensions shown on recorded maps used and referred to in conveyances for the purpose of description express the understandings and agreements of the parties with reference to the location and boundaries of the land conveyed.”

“They are to be taken as correct until shown by clear proof to be in error.”

“The trial court was not obliged to find that Mr. Cook’s survey was more accurate than the original survey. It could be no better than its starting points, and as the authenticity of these was in doubt, the survey as a whole was inconclusive.”

SHINN, J.,

pro tem.

Plaintiffs had judgment in an action to quiet title to a city lot and defendants appeal.

According to a map of the Hubbs tract recorded in 1906, there was a block of seven lots facing on Anaheim Street in the city of Long Beach between Alamitos Avenue on the west and Orange Avenue on the east, having a total frontage of 428.95 feet. The lots were numbered consecutively from one on the west to seven on the east; each had a frontage on Anaheim of 60 feet, with the exception of lot one, which was shown on the map to have a width of 63.95 feet, and lot seven, which was shown to be 65 feet in width. This controversy is between plaintiffs, owners of lot three, and defendants, owners of lots one and two. It arises out of the claim made by defendants that the block as originally laid out was actually 431.60 feet in length between Alamitos and Orange Avenues, or 2.65 feet in excess of the length shown on the map. Defendant Clara R. Hubbs, here represented by her guardians, was the original owner of the subdivision, and the lots sold in the tract, including lot three, were conveyed by reference to the recorded map.

Defendants contend that such excess of frontage as exists should be allocated to their lot one under rules which it is not necessary to state. Plaintiffs contend, and the court found, that the recorded map was correct and that no such excess existed in the block.

It is evident that the whole case turns upon a question of fact. If the court’s finding that the map was not proven to be incorrect is supported by the evidence, the case is disposed of, and it becomes unnecessary to determine how any excess

[519]

frontage should be allocated as among the owners of the several lots in the block.

The contention of defendants is that the map was in error in that it failed to include within the boundaries of the block as delineated all of the land facing Anaheim Street between Orange Avenue and Alamitos Avenue. The question which the court had to decide was the width of the block in 1906, at the time the land was surveyed and platted into lots. The court assumed, to start with, that the map was correct; this was a proper assumption.

Hoffman v. Van Duzee

AI Brief

SHINN, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief