Hunter v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Los Angeles & San Diego

California Court of Appeal Dec 7, 1932 No. Docket No. 995.Published

Before: Morton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that lots separated by a street are not "adjoining" for the purposes of enforcing deed restrictions, as the term "lot" refers to land set apart for private use rather than the center of the street. Consequently, the plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the restrictions against the defendants.

Issues

Whether lots separated by a public street constitute "adjoining" lots for the purpose of enforcing restrictive covenants.
Whether the boundary of a lot for the purpose of deed restrictions includes the portion of the street to the center line.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the word ‘lot’ as generally and customarily used, does not include such portion of the street.”

“Careful consideration of the terms of the deed contract therefore make it clear that the boundary line of lot three is the street line as delineated on the tract maps and the northerly half of the street is not included.”

“Therefore, we hold the lots are not adjoining.”

MORTON, J.,

pro tem.

Plaintiffs brought this action against defendants for an injunction preventing the alleged violation of building restrictions. After sustaining defendants’ demurrer to plaintiffs’ complaint without leave to amend and denying plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction, the trial court entered a judgment dismissing the action with costs, from which plaintiffs appeal.

It appears that plaintiffs’ lot, known as lot 4 of tract 4464 and located on the southwest corner of Eighth and Cochran Streets in the city of Los Angeles, is improved with a one-story stucco residence. The other lot, known as lot 3 of the same tract, is located on the northwest corner of Eighth and Cochran Streets and on this lot defendants are building a two-story class A, reinforced concrete school building. Plaintiffs’ lot is bounded on the north by Eighth Street and defendants’ lot is bounded on the south by Eighth Street.

By this action plaintiffs sought to restrain and enjoin defendants from constructing any building other than a residence on lot 3 in accordance with the restrictions of the deed, which are as follows: “it is provided and covenanted with a covenant running with the land herein conveyed that this conveyance is made and accepted upon each of the following conditions, which shall apply to and be binding upon the grantee, his heirs, devisees, executors, administrators, and assigns, namely: . . . That said premises shall be used for residence purposes only; that no apartment house, double house, flat, lodging house, hotel, store, nor any building or structure whatever other than a first-class private residence with the accustomary outbuildings, including a private stable, shall be erected, placed or permitted on said premises or any part thereof; that such residence shall cost and be fairly worth not less than Sixty-Five Hundred Dollars ($6,500.00), and shall not (nor shall any porch or projection therefrom, except steps) be located less than 30 feet from the front property line of said premises, . . . And'as

[92]

to the owner, and the heirs, devisees, executors, administrators, and assigns of any other lot or lots in said Tract No. 4464

adjoining the above described premises,

Hunter v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Los Angeles & San Diego

AI Brief

MORTON, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief