Holloman v. Richmond

McCABE, J., pro tem.* Holloman brought this action to quiet title to a pier and float, for injunctive relief and declaratory relief against defendants Allen, Richmond and City of Newport Beach (hereinafter called defendant City). Prom a judgment declaring that defendants Richmond, Allen and plaintiffs each owned an undivided one-third interest in a pier and float and defendants Richmond might continue the joint use of the pier and float and denying the right of plaintiffs and defendants Allen to terminate the rights of defendants Richmond in the pier and float, plaintiffs and defendants Allen appeal.

Historically Lots 18, 19 and 20, Tract 5, Balboa Island had been owned by one, Lachenmeyer. Prior to his ownership of these parcels of land, under a 1940-1941 permit from defendant City, there had been built a pier and float the ownership and use of which is now in question. The pier and float were constructed on either side of the bayward prolongation of the common lot line of Lots 19 and 20. The pier and float are upon submerged lands owned by the defendant City. Separating Lots 18, 19 and 20 from the bay, pier and float is a public walk.

In 1950 Lachenmeyer deeded Lot 18 to defendants Richmond. In addition to the deed, he gave defendants Richmond a paper entitled “Bill of Sale” which in part reads: “... all that personal property described as: an undivided one-third interest in and to that certain pier and float situated on the extension of the property line separating Lots 19 and 20, block 5, Balboa Island....”

Plaintiffs, in August 1960, through mesne conveyances, became the owners of Lot 19 and a one-third interest in the pier and float. Defendants Allen became the owners of Lot 20 and a one-third interest in the pier and float in 1956. Defendants Allen received their conveyances directly from Lachenmeyer, the same person who conveyed Lot 18 to defendants Richmond.

From the time they became owners defendants Richmond paid the electricity bill for the lights on the pier and float, paid taxes on Lot 18 and on the one-third interest in the pier and float, repaired the pier and float. Defendants Allen and [503]the predecessors in interest of plaintiffs paid for the paint and other materials which went into the repair and maintenance work which was done by defendants Richmond. Apparently the defendants Richmond received no reimbursement for the payments for the electricity. The water at the pier is supplied through defendants Allen’s property.