Source: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/buehler-v-oregon-washington-plywood-corp-30387
Timestamp: 2019-02-17 13:54:30
Document Index: 82549927

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1104', '§ 341', '§ 715', '§ 780', '§ 1293', '§ 1214']

Buehler v. Oregon-Washington Plywood Corp. - 17 Cal.3d 520 - Mon, 07/12/1976 | California Supreme Court Resources
Home > Opinions > Buehler v. Oregon-Washington Plywood Corp.
Citation 17 Cal.3d 520
Buehler v. Oregon-Washington Plywood Corp. , 17 Cal.3d 520
[] Appellants' predecessors in interest, Joseph and Mary Campbell, once owned a ranch enclosed by a large land area known as the Garcia tract. In 1908, the Campbells conveyed to the L. E. White Lumber Company (hereinafter White Lumber) and its successors and assigns, all timber then standing on the ranch. White Lumber was also granted an [17 Cal.3d 524] easement across Campbell Ranch to haul the Campbell timber and any other timber which White Lumber might "acquire upon adjoining land or lands in the vicinity of" the Campbell Ranch.
The action was settled and dismissed, and a "road agreement" was executed and recorded in 1956; it provided that Moores and Smith and Cloverdale Redwood were granted permanent easements in gross "for any purposes reasonably related to the ownership, management and exploitation of timber and forest products which from time to time may be owned or controlled by the owner or owners of said easements ...." The easement was assignable only to a partnership or corporation which had acquired operating control of at least one-third of the timber situated in parts of the Garcia tract. Appellants received $10,000 in cash, grazing rights and other considerations. According to the affidavits of [17 Cal.3d 525] William Buehler and Judge Timothy O'Brien (who had been appellants' attorney), the easement holders had indicated to appellants during the contract negotiations that the easement could only be used to haul timber originating within the Garcia tract. Appellants believed that these understandings were incorporated in the road agreement.
The trial court adopted respondents' interpretation of the road agreement, determining that the "language [is] completely clear" and holding that the easement conferred thereunder "may be used and enjoyed ... regardless of the location of the lands from which such timber and forest products may be derived ...." [17 Cal.3d 526]
[2] Summary judgment may only be granted if no material fact issue remains in the case. Where affidavits have been submitted by the opposing parties, any doubts as to whether summary judgment is proper should be resolved against the moving party. (Pettis v. General Tel. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 503, 505 [58 Cal.Rptr. 316, 426 P.2d 884].)
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in determining that the language of the road agreement was clear, and in disregarding extrinsic evidence which had been presented in opposition to summary judgment. [3] In determining the scope of an easement, extrinsic evidence may be used as an aid to interpretation unless such evidence imparts a meaning to which the instrument is not reasonably susceptible. (Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, [] [521-523 (67 Cal.Rptr. 761, 439 P.2d 889)]. []
Although the agreement [which is set forth in relevant part in the margin fn. 2] does not specifically state that the easement holders are entitled [17 Cal.3d 527] to use the Campbell right-of-way for hauling timber originating from any source, respondents contend that no other interpretation is reasonable. They argue that a conveyance of an easement in gross, as here, cannot possibly be construed as being subject to territorial restrictions. [4] It is true that the benefit of an appurtenant easement attaches only to the land of the easement holder (see Civ. Code, § 1104; Moots v. Kasten (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 734, 736 [203 P.2d 537]; Burby, Land Burdens in California -- Easements (1930) 4 So.Cal.L.Rev. 115, 118), while an easement in gross runs in favor of the persons specified in the grant. (See Balestra v. Button (1942) 54 Cal.App.2d 192, 197 [128 P.2d 816]; 3 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1973) Real Property, § 341, [pp. 2041-2042.]) But territorial restrictions are not necessarily absent simply because the parties have limited the use and enjoyment of the easement to a number of specified persons. [Such restrictions, for example, may be directly relevant to the matter of the scope and extent of permitted use. (See generally 3 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (1971) §§ 715, 722.)]
[Paragraph three, on the other hand, gives rise to some doubt on the matter of territorial limitation upon the source of timber which may be hauled over the subject road. After stating that the easements are to be in gross, it goes on to consider the question of who may benefit from them. The easements, it is provided, may be used and enjoyed by "second parties" -- i.e., Cloverdale Redwood Co. and Moores and Smith -- their employees, agents, and contractors as well as any licensee in which second parties had at least a 50 percent interest. (Cloverdale Redwood Co. and Moores and Smith, of course, at the time of the agreement had [17 Cal.3d 528] been granted timber rights in the property of Rudolph Lumber, which comprised the greater part of the Garcia basin.) It was further provided that the easements were to be assignable -- but only to a partnership or corporation which had "acquired operating control of at least one-third of the timber situated on the lands described" in the memorandum of agreement by which Rudolph Lumber granted timber rights to second parties in an area known as Unit 1 of the Garcia tract, or had acquired such control of the same proportion "of the timber situated on the lands described" in the memorandum of agreement by which Rudolph Lumber granted timber rights in the areas known as Units 3 and 4 of the Garcia tract. The easements were also to be assignable to Rudolph Lumber itself, the holder of the underlying fee.
[5] We have concluded that the foregoing provisions, through the manner in which they limit the use and assignability of the subject easements, suggest an intention on the part of the contracting parties that the easements be used solely for the purpose of logging operations relating to the utilization of timber rights in the Garcia basin. Indeed, we can conceive of no reason for the subject limitations if this were not the case. In any event, the language adverted to is in our view reasonably susceptible of the indicated meaning, and as such was subject to clarification by means of extrinsic evidence. (See Continental Baking Co. v. Katz, supra, 68 Cal.2d 512, 522; Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 865 [44 Cal.Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839].) In granting the motion for summary judgment, and thereby precluding a trial to determine the instrument's true meaning in light of extrinsic evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court was in error.]
The affidavits of William Buehler and Judge O'Brien [clearly support the meaning sought to be attributed to the road agreement by plaintiffs], relating that the original grantees had indicated to appellants during the 1956 contract negotiations that the easements conveyed would only authorize the hauling of timber originating within the Garcia tract. [6] Respondents argue that the affidavits were insufficient in that both Buehler and Judge O'Brien admitted that they could not recall the exact words spoken during the discussion. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, affidavits must set forth admissible evidence within the personal knowledge of the affiant. But the matters stated in the affidavits were unquestionably within the personal knowledge of Buehler and Judge O'Brien. Their inability to recall the exact words of the discussion goes only to the weight, not the admissibility, of their [17 Cal.3d 529] evidence. (See Evid. Code, § 780, subd. (c); Wright v. Best (1942) 19 Cal.2d 368, 379-380 [121 P.2d 702].) A triable issue of fact was presented as to whether the road agreement permits the hauling of timber originating outside of the Garcia tract.
Appellants also challenge the trial court's determination that Longview was a bona fide purchaser. The trial court had based this determination upon an uncontradicted showing that Longview "had no knowledge of any interpretation other than the plain meaning of the document." But the road agreement [had no "plain meaning."] Thus, the issue is whether Oregon-Washington (as Longview's grantor) or Longview are chargeable with notice of appellants' claims. [] It has been said that: "'In so far as a purchaser has actual or constructive notice of a conveyance or other instrument executed by one previously owning or claiming to own the land, he is charged with notice of all matters stated or referred to in such conveyance, which may possibly affect the title, and he is bound to make any inquiries or researches suggested by such statements or references.'" (Renden v. Geneva Development Corp. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 578, 589, fn. 9 [61 Cal.Rptr. 463], quoting 5 Tiffany, The Law of Real Property (3d ed. 1939) § 1293, p. 77.)
Respondents claim that the understanding allegedly reached by the contracting parties with respect to the easements was an unrecorded [17 Cal.3d 530] "side agreement" and, as such, was void as against any subsequent purchasers for value. (See Civ. Code, §§ 1214, 1217.) But, according to William Buehler's deposition, he believed that the parties' understanding had been incorporated in the road agreement.
It may not be fashionable today to defend the traditional parol evidence rule. However in my dissent in Delta Dynamics, Inc. v. Arioto (1968) 69 Cal.2d 525, 532 [72 Cal.Rptr. 785, 446 P.2d 785], I pointed out the concern of the legal profession: "Now, however, that the majority deem negotiations leading to execution of contracts admissible, the trend has become so unmistakably ominous that I urge a halt.
"It can be contended that there may be no evil per se in considering testimony about every discussion and conversation prior to and contemporaneous with the signing of a written instrument and that social utility may result in some circumstances. The problem, however, is that which devolves upon members of the bar who are commissioned by clients to prepare a written instrument able to withstand future assaults. Given two experienced businessmen dealing at arm's length, both represented by competent counsel, it has become virtually impossible under recently evolving rules of evidence to draft a written contract that will produce predictable results in court. The written word, heretofore deemed immutable, is now at all times subject to alteration by self-serving recitals based upon fading memories of antecedent events. This, I submit, is a serious impediment to the certainty required in commercial transactions." [17 Cal.3d 531]
Fourteen years after the original conveyance was recorded, plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against the successors of the original grantees, alleging that, despite the terms of the written instrument, plaintiffs had not subjectively intended to grant an easement in gross but really meant to restrict the use of the easement to the hauling of timber originating in the Garcia River Basin, a small watershed on the Mendocino coast. The trial court properly held that pursuant to Pacific Gas & E. Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage etc. Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 33 [69 Cal.Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641, 40 A.L.R.3d 1373], the language of the agreement granting the easements was clear and not reasonably susceptible of plaintiffs' purported interpretation.
It is a heroic conclusion to find ambiguity on the face of this written instrument. Plaintiff contends the ambiguity arises because the conveyance does not specifically impose a territorial limitation on the source of the timber. I find it to be a disturbing concept that any subject, conjured up 14 years after recording of the instrument, can be deemed to create an ambiguity solely because it was omitted from the text of the instrument. In other words, what was not provided in the document becomes more significant than what was provided -- a strange new doctrine that should [17 Cal.3d 532] cause members of the bar who prepare contracts to hurriedly increase their legal malpractice coverage.
­FN 1. [Here, unlike in Riley v. Bear Creek Planning Committee, ante, at page 500 [131 Cal.Rptr. 381, 551 P.2d 1213], there is no question that an easement was created; only its scope is at issue. An easement may be created by express or implied grant, as well as by prescription, although not by parol. (Elliott v. McCombs (1941) 17 Cal.2d 23, 30 [109 P.2d 329].)]
­FN 2. This Agreement made and executed this 15th day of September, 1956, by and between William Kenneth Buehler and Jessie Buehler, First Parties, and Cloverdale Redwood Co., a California corporation, and Moores and Smith, a partnership, Second Parties,
Mon, 07/12/1976 17 Cal.3d 520 Review - Civil Appeal Opinion issued
1 WILLIAM KENNETH BUEHLER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. OREGON-WASHINGTON PLYWOOD CORPORATION et al. (Defendants and Respondents)
2 OREGON-WASHINGTON PLYWOOD CORPORATION et al. (Defendants and Respondents)
Jul 12 1976 Opinion: Reversed
SCOCAL, Buehler v. Oregon-Washington Plywood Corp. , 17 Cal.3d 520 available at: (https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/buehler-v-oregon-washington-plywood-corp-30387) (last visited Sunday February 17, 2019).