MacFarlane

MacFarlane v. Peters

Good Law
103 Cal. App. 3d 627·163 Cal. Rptr. 655·1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 1610
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 1980Civ. 18599California1,364 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

Multiple parties petitioned for a determination of their respective interests in the same real property. Exercising its equitable powers, the trial court reformed a treasurer’s deed, adjusted certain monetary claims, rejected 2 claimed easements and quieted title to 5 contiguous unimproved lots forming a 125-foot square parcel fronting on Archer Street in Pacific Beach. Only MacFarlane appeals.

At the time of trial, a partial overlay of the separate recorded interests on a parcel map of the 125 by 125-foot property reveals the problem. We attach a sketch (see appendix, post, p. 634).

Not surprisingly, through the years this litigation has come to be known as the “British Flag” case among courthouse regulars.

Appellant MacFarlane claims an absolute fee in a continuous strip .0108 inches iii width running the entire perimeter of the property, plus 3 additional equidistant strips .0108 inches in width running east and west across the entire parcel. This effectively prevents access to the property and chops it into portions 25 feet by 31-1/3 feet.

The resulting pattern created lot splits prohibited by existing zoning ordinances (§ 102.0103, San Diego Municipal Code),…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.