Severns

Severns v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Good Law
101 Cal. App. 4th 1209·125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 100
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 2002B150284California7,708 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Introduction

Gary M. Severns (plaintiff) brought a quiet title action against Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific). The bone of contention was interpretation of a 1901 transaction in which Frederick and Elisabeth Bluemle granted an interest to the California Pacific Railway Company (California Pacific Railway). In essence, plaintiff alleged that the 1901 conveyance transferred only an easement, not a fee interest; that he was the successor-in-interest to the Bluemles and therefore the owner of the land (servient estate) burdened by the easement; and that the easement had been terminated by abandonment. He therefore sought to quiet title as against Union Pacific, the successor-in-interest to the California Pacific Railway.

The matter was tried to the court on a statement of undisputed material facts. The court found the conveyance was ambiguous and therefore considered extrinsic evidence to interpret it. The trial court ultimately concluded that the 1901 conveyance created only an easement; that the easement had been extinguished by abandonment; and that under the doctrine of marginal streets, plaintiff was entitled to have title quieted on his behalf to the…

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.