43 Cal.App.5th 549
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- In 1958 McDermott’s predecessors and the Connolly family exchanged parcels in Section 10; deeds and a Siegfried survey/drawing were prepared but relied on existing fences along Carnegie Ridge rather than formally locating USGS section corners.
- Deeds described a Connolly parcel as 107.27 acres “beginning at a point on the West line of Section 10,” but the Siegfried drawing was keyed to fence/ ridge lines; fences were later shown not to lie on section lines.
- McDermott later rebuilt a fence (2009) and hired a surveyor (Lamb), who found the historic fences deviated significantly from section lines; dispute arose over whether Connolly’s parcel ended at the fences (McDermott’s position) or extended to the section lines (Connolly’s position).
- McDermott sued (2013) to quiet title and eject; Connolly cross-complained. At bench trial the court admitted hearsay statements made by deceased negotiator Robert Connolly (relayed by his son Mark) under Evidence Code §1323 and applied the agreed-boundary doctrine, awarding Connolly the disputed ~58 acres.
- The trial court also awarded Connolly $31,637.46 in costs/attorney fees under Code Civ. Proc. §2033.420 for McDermott’s denials of various requests for admission (RFAs). The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Robert Connolly’s out-of-court statements under Evid. Code §1323 | Statements were hearsay and inadmissible because declarant had an interest in the disputed land; trustworthiness lacking | §1323 allows boundary statements by unavailable declarants if sufficiently trustworthy; declarant’s interest is a factor, not a per se bar | Admission under §1323 was within trial court’s discretion; statements were trustworthy (made before dispute, natural context, corroborated) and properly admitted |
| Application of agreed-boundary doctrine and interpretation of the 1958 transaction | Deed language (107.27 acres and section-line description) and Siegfried documents show intent to grant only 107.27 acres to Connolly, extending to section lines | Parties agreed in 1958 to fix boundary along Carnegie Ridge fence; extrinsic evidence and long acquiescence support agreed boundary | Agreed-boundary doctrine applied: uncertainty existed, parties agreed to use fence, and long acceptance/acquiescence made changing the line unjustified; judgment affirmed |
| Ejectment claim / possession at time of entry | McDermott argues trial erred in denying ejectment because it owned and possessed disputed land when Connolly’s predecessors entered | Connolly relies on agreed-boundary evidence and exclusive possession by Connolly since 1958 | Trial court reasonably found McDermott failed to prove possession/right at time of entry; ejectment denied |
| Attorney’s fees under CCP §2033.420 for denied RFAs | Many RFAs were properly denied for lack of personal knowledge (members were infants/unborn) or legal/conclusion objections | McDermott had duty to investigate and, after receiving Mark’s 2015 declaration, had no good reason to maintain denials; RFAs were substantial and necessary to prove Connolly’s case | Trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding fees for numerous RFAs; award upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Christ v. Schwartz, 2 Cal.App.5th 440 (2016) (review standard: admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Ghirardo v. Antonioli, 8 Cal.4th 791 (1994) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Bryant v. Blevins, 9 Cal.4th 47 (1994) (elements and limits of agreed-boundary doctrine)
- Morton v. Folger, 15 Cal. 275 (historical authority on admissibility of boundary declarations by deceased persons)
- Morcom v. Baiersky, 16 Cal.App. 480 (1911) (historic survey/map admissibility supporting boundary testimony)
- People v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 804 (2013) (guide to evaluating trustworthiness for hearsay exceptions)
- City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 232 (1996) (instrument/deed interpretation and limits on extrinsic evidence)
- Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co., 179 Cal.App.3d 500 (1986) (duty to investigate requests for admissions)
- Bloxham v. Saldinger, 228 Cal.App.4th 729 (2014) (trial court discretion over RFA sanctions and fee awards)