Wilson v. Beville

WOOD, P. J. This is an action to quiet title to real property and for ejectment.

There was a prior appeal in this action. (Wilson v. Beville, 47 Cal.2d 852 [306 P.2d 789].) The present appeal is by plaintiff from the judgment (on the second trial) that plaintiff recover $207.57 and interest thereon.

Plaintiff’s title to the property is based on a city treasurer’s deed issued to his predecessor in interest pursuant to a foreclosure sale under a street improvement bond issued under the Improvement Act of 1911 (now Sts. & Hy. Code, §§ 5000-[499679]4). The assessment resulting in the bond was in the amount o£ $207.57 and was recorded on November 23, 1927. On November 25, 1927, the city of Los Angeles commenced a condemnation action by which it sought an easement for street purposes across part of the property. The owner of the assessment lien was not joined as a defendant in that action. On December 28, 1927, a bond representing the assessment was issued to the Municipal Bond Company. The holder of the hond was not made a defendant in the condemnation action. On July 23,1931, final judgment of condemnation was entered in that action, and the record owner of the portion of the property condemned was awarded and paid $5,376.20. On January 22, 1932, the city took possession of the portion of the property condemned and has devoted it to public use as a city street since said date. Taxes have not been levied on that portion of the property since 1927.

On October 19, 1938, a treasurer’s certificate of sale based on foreclosure of the bond was issued to A1 Sehuh. On March 8, 1950, Sehuh assigned the certificate to Betty Wilson, and on August 23, 1950, a treasurer’s deed was issued to her. On April 12, 1951, she executed a deed whereby she quitclaimed her interest in the property to plaintiff, and he commenced this action on the following day.

On the first trial, the judgment was that plaintiff was the owner of the property subject to an easement for a street, and that plaintiff take nothing by the action. On appeal by plaintiff from that judgment, the portion of the judgment that plaintiff was the owner of the property subject to the easement was affirmed, and the portion that plaintiff take nothing was reversed. (Wilson v. Beville, 47 Cal.2d 852 [306 P.2d 789].)

Prior to the second trial, a pretrial conference order was made which stated that the only issue to be tried was the amount of compensation payable to plaintiff. Thereafter and prior to the second trial, the parties made a written stipulation that the trial be limited to the proper construction of the decision on the prior appeal; and in the event a determination is made that (1) the plaintiff’s damages are not a matter of arithmetical calculation, and (2) it is necessary to present evidence of the value of the property at a particular date, the trial shall be continued for at least a month and the issue as to the value of the property may be tried by a jury. After that stipulation was made, and prior to the trial date, the court made an order that “in the event of a determination of