Legal Opinion
MacFarlane v. Peters
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 27, 1980No. Civ. 18599PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
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,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- DeGarmo v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Baines v. ZuiebackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Southern Pacific Co. v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Roman v. RiesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Union Paving Co. v. East Del Paso HeightsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Plaza National Bank v. ValdezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1987
- Curtin v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- McGinnis v. CaytonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1984
- McGinnis v. CaytonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1984
- Musetti v. Buckley CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.