211 Cal. App. 4th 1020
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wooster owns approximately 4,535 acres in Calaveras County subject to a 1981 conservation easement with the Department of Fish and Game.
- The deed required the department to post no hunting/no trespassing signs at all entry points; the failure to post allegedly harmed the property's wildlife preservation purposes.
- The department acquired full development and hunting rights under the easement, enabling it to prohibit hunting on the property.
- Wooster sued in 2010 seeking quiet title, rescission and cancellation, and declaratory relief based on the posting breach and the hunting-right grant.
- The trial court sustained the department’s demurrer without leave to amend and later dismissed the action; Wooster appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether posting was a condition subsequent extinguishing the easement | Wooster argues posting created a condition subsequent causing forfeiture if unmet. | Wooster contends the posting was a condition; the department breached it. | Posting is a covenant; no forfeiture of easement. |
| Whether failure to post justifies rescission for breach of consideration | Rescission based on failure of consideration is warranted. | Rescission cannot be based on breach of a covenant absent fraud. | Rescission not supported; deed not void for lack of consideration. |
| Legality of grant of hunting rights to the department | Grant to department is illegal and inconsistent with conservation statutes. | Grant is lawful and consistent with conservation statutes and public policy. | Grant of hunting rights is legal and within statutory framework. |
| Consistency with Civil Code ownership and running with the land | Hunting ban burdens but does not benefit land; not enforceable. | Conservation easement creates permissible land-use restrictions run with the land. | Hunting ban is a valid conservation easement restriction running with the land. |
| Whether rescission based on mistake is viable | Parties entered into the agreement by mistake about legality of hunting-right grant. | Grant was legal; no basis for mistake-based rescission. | No error; rescission based on mistake rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnston v. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space Dist., 100 Cal.App.4th 973 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (definition and nature of conservation easements)
- Hawley v. Kafitz, 148 Cal. 393 (Cal. 1905) (forfeitures and conditions subsequent in real property)
- Gramer v. City of Sacramento, 2 Cal.2d 432 (Cal. 1935) (interpretation of conditions in deeds and reservations)
- Firth v. Marovich, 160 Cal. 257 (Cal. 1911) (conditions or covenants in deeds and forfeiture language)
- Lavely v. Nonemaker, 212 Cal. 380 (Cal. 1931) (attack on deeds for breach of consideration; effect on title)
- City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 232 (Cal. 1996) (interpretation of conditions subsequent in real property)
- Valle de Oro Bank v. Gamboa, 26 Cal.App.4th 1686 (Cal. App. 1994) (mitigation and damages in breach scenarios)
- Downing v. Rademacher, 133 Cal. 220 (Cal. 1901) (difficulties of constructing conditions and related damages)
- Universal Savings Corp. v. Cal. etc. Mfg. Co., 20 Cal.2d 751 (Cal. 1942) (forfeiture policy and strict construction against conditions)