Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist

Supreme Court of California · 1972 · Property

Propertyeasementsreservation in favor of third partystranger to the deedeasementthird-party reservationstranger to the deedgrantor intent

Facts

McGuigan owned two adjacent lots and allowed the church across the street to use vacant lot 20 for parking during church services. When Petersen sought to buy lot 20 from McGuigan so he could resell both lots to Willard, McGuigan agreed only if the church could continue using lot 20 for parking, and the deed to Petersen therefore stated that the conveyance was subject to an easement for automobile parking during church hours for the benefit of the church so long as the benefited property was used for church purposes. Petersen later deeded both lots to Willard, but his deed did not mention the church easement, and Willard did not learn of the clause until months after purchase. The trial court found McGuigan and Petersen intended to convey an easement to the church, but held the clause invalid because the church was a stranger to the title.

Issue

May a grantor, in conveying real property to one person, effectively reserve or create an interest in that property for the benefit of a third party who is a stranger to the deed? Also, did the deed language here, though phrased as "subject to" an easement, effectively give the church an easement?

Rule

California abandons the common law rule that a deed cannot reserve an interest in favor of a stranger to the title. Deeds are to be construed primarily to give effect to the grantor's intent, and where the deed as a whole and the evidence support an intent to give a third party an easement, that interest will be recognized.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez owned a warehouse lot in Fresno next to a small private alley used by a neighboring print shop. She deeded the lot to Owen Park for a discounted price, and the deed stated that the conveyance was "subject to a perpetual ingress and egress easement for Harborline Press over the north 12 feet of the parcel," even though Harborline Press was not a party to the deed.

Under California law as stated by the majority opinion, what is the strongest argument for Harborline Press's easement?

Explanation. The majority abandoned the common law rule barring reservations in favor of strangers to title. The controlling inquiry is the grantor's intent as shown by the deed and surrounding evidence. Because the deed expressly identifies an easement for a third party and the sale price reflects the encumbrance, the interest is recognized. (Derived from Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist (1972).)