Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist, Pacifica
7 Cal. 3d 473, 498 P.2d 987, 102 Cal. Rptr. 739 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A grantor, in deeding real property to one person, may validly reserve an interest in that property for a third party who is a stranger to the title, thereby creating a valid interest in the third party.
Facts:
- Genevieve McGuigan owned two adjacent lots, 19 and 20.
- McGuigan was a member of the First Church of Christ, Scientist (the church), and allowed it to use lot 20 for parking.
- McGuigan sold lot 19 to a man named Petersen.
- Donald Willard, a realtor, sought to purchase both lots 19 and 20 from Petersen.
- To facilitate the sale to Willard, Petersen approached McGuigan to purchase lot 20.
- McGuigan agreed to sell lot 20 to Petersen only if the church could continue to use it for parking.
- The deed from McGuigan to Petersen for lot 20 contained a clause providing an easement for automobile parking for the benefit of the church.
- Petersen subsequently conveyed both lots to Willard via a deed that did not contain the easement clause.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald E. and Jennie C. Willard filed an action to quiet title against the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in a California trial court.
- The trial court, sitting without a jury, found that although the grantor intended to convey an easement to the church, the reservation was ineffective under the common law rule that one cannot reserve an interest in property for a stranger to the title.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Willards, quieting their title to the property.
- The First Church of Christ, Scientist, the defendant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a clause in a deed that reserves an interest in the property for a third party, who is a stranger to the title, create a valid interest in that third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.
Yes, a grantor may validly reserve an interest in property for a third party in a conveyance to which the third party is not a party. The court abandoned the common law rule that a grantor could not reserve an interest in property to a stranger to the title. The court reasoned that the old rule was an outdated 'feudal shackle' that frustrates the grantor's intent, which is the primary objective in construing a conveyance. The court noted that modern courts should interpret conveyances like other contracts to give effect to the parties' intentions rather than adhering to rigid feudal standards. Furthermore, the old rule could lead to inequitable results, as the grantee likely paid a reduced price for the encumbered property. By abandoning the rule, the court follows the modern trend set by other states and prioritizes the grantor's clear intent over archaic technicalities.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from long-standing common law doctrine in California by explicitly abolishing the rule against reserving an interest in property for a stranger to the title. It aligns property law with modern contract principles, emphasizing the grantor's intent as the primary guide for interpreting conveyances. This precedent prevents subsequent purchasers from gaining a windfall by invalidating an intended easement for which a reduced price was likely paid. Future cases involving similar reservations will now focus on the grantor's intent rather than on this archaic, formalistic rule, thereby simplifying conveyancing and promoting equitable outcomes.
