Wooster v. Department of Fish & Game
151 Cal. Rptr. 3d 340, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1020, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1250 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conservation easement cannot be extinguished or rescinded due to the grantee's failure to perform a covenant within the deed, unless the deed explicitly states it as a condition subsequent with a forfeiture clause; nor is a grant of hunting rights to a state agency for preservation purposes illegal or inconsistent with conservation easement statutes.
Facts:
- In 1981, the previous owners of approximately 4,535 acres of real property in Calaveras County (the Ranch Mine and the Stackpole) and the Department of Fish and Game (the department) executed and recorded a conservation easement deed.
- The deed stated the parties' desire to preserve and protect the property for wildlife conservation and to prevent degradation of fish and wildlife habitat, while allowing owners to continue grazing livestock and develop mineral rights.
- The deed granted the department "full development and hunting rights in the form of a conservation easement" subject to various conditions, including a requirement that the department "shall post the property at all points of entry to inform the public that said property is a State wildlife area and that no trespassing or hunting is allowed."
- The department did not consistently keep the property posted as required by the deed.
- In the absence of the required signs, people trespassed on the Ranch Mine, and a marijuana growing operation appeared to be set up there.
- In May 2009, Kelly C. Wooster acquired the Ranch Mine portion of the property.
- Subsequently, Wooster also acquired the Stackpole portion of the property.
Procedural Posture:
- In January 2010, Wooster commenced an action against the department in the trial court (court of first instance) by filing a complaint to quiet title, for rescission and cancellation, and for declaratory relief.
- The department demurred, and the trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend as to the cause of action for rescission and cancellation.
- In June 2010, Wooster filed a first amended and supplemental complaint.
- The department demurred again, and the trial court sustained the demurrer as to all causes of action with leave to amend.
- In October 2010, Wooster filed his second amended and supplemental complaint.
- The department demurred again, and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to the first five causes of action (nonperformance of condition, illegal contract, two rescission claims, and quiet title).
- The trial court initially ruled that the cause of action for declaratory relief could proceed.
- In February 2011, the department moved to strike the declaratory relief cause of action, which the trial court denied.
- In April 2011, the department filed a motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, a renewed motion to strike the declaratory relief cause of action.
- The trial court granted the motion to strike the declaratory relief cause of action in part, striking certain portions so that only a general request for a judicial determination of rights remained.
- The department prepared a formal order, approved by Wooster's attorney, stating that the declaratory relief cause of action was "stricken in its entirety," and the court signed it.
- In June 2011, the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal.
- Wooster timely appealed to the Court of Appeal.
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 state agency's failure to comply with a posting requirement in a conservation easement deed, or the grant of hunting rights to the agency for preservation purposes, render the conservation easement void or subject to rescission?
Opinions:
Majority - Robie, J.
No, a state agency's failure to comply with a posting requirement in a conservation easement deed does not extinguish or provide a basis for rescinding the easement, nor is the grant of hunting rights to the department for preservation purposes illegal. The court reasoned that the posting requirement was merely a covenant, not a condition subsequent requiring forfeiture, because conditions subsequent are disfavored in law and the deed lacked express language of forfeiture. The mere use of the word "condition" in a list of terms, many of which are clearly not conditions subsequent, is insufficient. Damages for a breach of covenant (the cost of posting) are ascertainable, and the difficulty of proving consequential damages does not transform a covenant into a condition subsequent. The court cited Hawley v. Kafitz and Universal Sales Corp. v. Cal. etc. Mfg. Co. to emphasize that forfeiture is not enforced without clear intent. Furthermore, the conservation easement could not be rescinded for failure of consideration (the posting requirement) because a deed without fraud in its inception is not void for any failure of consideration, even if the promise is written in the deed itself. Lavely v. Nonemaker was cited for this principle, underscoring the need for certainty in real estate titles. Finally, the court held that the grant of hunting rights to the department for the purpose of prohibiting hunting was legal and consistent with state law. It found that this action aligned with the state's overarching policy of wildlife preservation and conservation (Fish & G. Code, § 1801) and the department's power to create areas for added protection (Fish & G. Code, § 314), effectively creating a game refuge. The court also determined the grant was consistent with the Wildlife Conservation Law of 1947, as protecting wildlife in certain areas helps populations increase and contributes to overall recreational use. The grant did not violate Civil Code provisions on property ownership, as it merely restricted hunting, not ownership of animals. The court concluded that preventing hunting helps retain land in its "natural, scenic, historical" condition, which is a legitimate purpose of a conservation easement under Civil Code section 815.1. The claim of rescission based on mistake regarding the legality of the hunting rights grant also failed, as the court found the grant was legal.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strong legal presumption against conditions subsequent and forfeiture in real property deeds, requiring explicit language for such provisions to be enforceable. It clarifies that a state agency's acquisition of "hunting rights" within a conservation easement, specifically to prohibit hunting, is a valid and legal means of wildlife preservation consistent with California's conservation statutes and public policy. The ruling provides certainty for conservation organizations and landowners regarding the enforceability and interpretation of conservation easements, particularly concerning monitoring and enforcement clauses versus core preservation goals.
