Eastman v. Peterson
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
COLLINS, J. pro tem. *
Plaintiff, owner of a life estate, brings this action against defendant, owner of a future interest as remainderman, to impress and foreclose a lien in the amount of his expenditures for permanent improvements on the subject real property.
The trial court found that plaintiff was in legal possession of the residential income property at 2305 Effie Street in the City of Los Angeles (hereafter called the property), at the time improvements “in the approximate sum of $10,000” were made thereon, 1 but that they were not made with any belief on plaintiff’s part that he was…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bliss v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- In re Estate of ClosCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- King v. HawleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Boggs v. BoggsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Sallee v. DaneriCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Smith v. Cap Concrete, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1982
- Avalon Pacific-Santa Ana, L.P. v. HD Supply Repair & Remodel, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Rowe v. Wells Fargo Realty Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1985
- Harris v. Audubon Society of Rhode IslandSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1983