HG16841187, RG16843893) HAYWARD PROPERTY, LLC, et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. The court affirmed the orders taxing XPO’s costs and denying sanctions.įiled 6/17/22 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR XPO LOGISTICS FREIGHT, INC., Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, A157687 v. The award of prejudgment interest on Hayward’s restitution award was reversed so the court can exercise its discretion in determining the amount. The trial court correctly disregarded APN references in the deeds Hayward did not acquire an interest in the disputed area. The court quieted title to the disputed area in XPO, denying Hayward’s purchase-price restitution claim, and awarding relief on its tax restitution claim in the stipulated sum-plus prejudgment interest, The parties ultimately stipulated to an estimated amount of real property taxes Hayward had paid for the disputed area, in excess of the taxes that XPO had paid on part of Hayward’s property. The court granted XPO judgment on the title claims. Hayward cross-complained to quiet title or obtain restitution for property taxes and the purchase price. The metes-and-bounds descriptions support XPO’s claim to the disputed area the APN references arguably support Hayward’s claim. The boundaries of the APNs were not changed. The 1997 document reconfiguring the property has an error in defining one parcel by its metes and bounds. In several transactions, one reconfigured parcel was conveyed to XPO, and the other to Hayward. In 1997, the owner reconfigured it into two parcels. Before 1997, the county assessor divided the property into three parcels with distinct assessor’s parcel numbers (APNs). In 1979, the property was owned by one entity and divided into four parcels.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |