City & County of San Francisco v. Union Pacific Railroad

Bad Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 1043·50 Cal. App. 4th 987·58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1·96 Daily Journal DAR 13519·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8153
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 9, 1996A068676California4,656 words

Opinion

Opinion

Phelan, J.

This appeal concerns the ownership of an 80-foot-wide strip of land which the City and County of San Francisco (the City) has used as part of its Hetch-Hetchy underground aqueduct. The trial court determined that the City did not own the land in fee, but had acquired a subsurface easement in the land for its pipeline, and that defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific) was the fee owner. The City appeals contending the trial court erred in interpreting the original deed and the judge abused his discretion in awarding Union Pacific attorney fees. We affirm the judgment and the award of attorney fees.

Factual and Procedural Background

The 1949 Deed

In 1949, Francis and Beatrice Wrigley, a married couple, conveyed by deed four parcels, including the disputed property (known alternatively as parcel 4 or parcel 114) to the City for installation of water pipelines subject to certain terms and limitations. The deed read that the grantors, “hereby grant to [the City], the following described real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California [parcels 1-4]” subject to enumerated rights and conditions, i.e., “covenants.”

The “covenants”…

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.