Home/California Court of Appeal/Froomer v. Drollinger

Froomer v. Drollinger

201 Cal. App. 2d 90, 19 Cal. Rptr. 891, 1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 2568
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 8, 1962
DocketCiv. 25356
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 201 Cal. App. 2d 90 (Froomer v. Drollinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Froomer v. Drollinger, 201 Cal. App. 2d 90, 19 Cal. Rptr. 891, 1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 2568 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962).

Opinion

LILLIE, J.

Involved in this proceeding are the construction and effect of a store lease respecting plaintiffs’ rights as lessees to the use and enjoyment of a parking area directly behind the store. When defendants, as owners of the property, erected a two-story office building on the parking area, plaintiffs instituted the present action for declaratory and injunctive relief; reformation of the lease (to include the area in question) was also sought. From a judgment adverse to their claims that the parking area was an appurtenance of the demised premises in which they had an implied easement, plaintiffs have appealed.

Since 1950 plaintiffs have been engaged in the retail shoe business under the name of System Outlet Shoes. The type of operation assertedly requires a high volume of customers and, therefore, immediate-access parking facilities. Plaintiffs’ store, originally leased in 1950 from defendants’ predecessors in interest, is one of a group then owned by said predecessors and located on South Sepulveda Boulevard in the Westchester area of Los Angeles, the legal description thereof being Lots 35, 36 and 37 of Tract 14011. Behind the stores was a paved and striped area which was used as a parking area for customers of all stores in the group and referred to hereinafter as the “immediate-access parking area”; behind this area there was an alley on the other side of which were situated Lots 7, 8 and 9, also owned by defendants’ predecessors but maintained by the Westchester Association, a nonprofit body as a “general parking area” for all of the stores in the entire neighborhood. (See following pages for diagrams.)

*92 The original lease related to a part of Lot 36, known as 8911 South Sepulveda. In the latter part of 1957 plaintiffs commenced negotiations with the then owners for a long-term lease (and larger space) within a building located on a portion of Lot 35, known as 8913-8915 South Sepulveda. Several proposals were submitted by plaintiffs to one Burge, a broker employed by defendants’ predecessors to manage the properties in the group. The first of these proposals was in the form of a letter, dated November 20, 1957. Therein specific reference was made, in addition to other proposed terms and conditions, to the “minimum rental” which would “include our pro rata share in any costs of maintenance of customer parking area on the asphaltic portion behind subject premises and also on Lot 9, in Tract No. 14011; it being further understood and agreed that we would have a continuing pro rata right to the use thereof by our customers, business invitees, patrons, employees, et cetera.” The only other written proposal in evidence, save for the lease itself, was a further offer by plaintiffs (likewise in the form of a letter and dated February 17, 1958) in which reference to the immediate-access parking area was not mentioned.

The lease, herein sought to be reformed, was finally executed on April 28, 1958. Although there are specifications for the remodelling of the premises concerned, there is no reference in any of the specifications to the unimproved area in dispute. Paragraph 33 of the lease, however, makes rather detailed provision for parking accommodations on Lot 9 (beyond the alley) : “In addition to the demised premises heretofore described, lessor agrees for the term of within lease to make available to the lessee its sub-leases [sm], concessionaries [sic], business customers, patrons and business invitees ... a parking area, to be used in common with others, designated as Lot 9, Tract 14011 . . . Use of said Lot 9 shall be subject to the prevailing rules and regulations governing the use of other ‘parking lots’ 1 to 21 of said Tract 14011 ...”

We summarize other testimony tending to support the judgment appealed from. Jules C. Goldstone, one of the predecessor-owners, testified that at no time did he grant rights to any of the tenants whereby they could use any of the immediate-access area. In this connection, it further appears, he actually negotiated for the termination of parking rights to the immediate rear of Lot 37 which had been granted by Goldstone’s predecessor in interest; the same witness also stated (and quite understandably) that there was never any *93 discussion by him with any of the plaintiffs whereby rights would be acquired in this same area (the rear of Lot 37). No signs, bumpers, planter boxes or other permanent structures, peculiar to permanent parking areas, were erected in portions of the demised premises claimed to be an appurtenance ; on the other hand, the area beyond the alley (Lots 7 through 9) was permanently dedicated by deed restriction *94 to parking and was subject of an agreement with a nonprofit body for its permanent maintenance in such capacity. Several photographs of the subject premises were received in evidence; the physical circumstances thus depicted speak for themselves, particularly with respect to plaintiffs’ argument that Lots 7 through 9 were inadequate to handle the customer needs of their business operation.

*93

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Hamidi
California Court of Appeal, 2023
People v. Tulanda CA2/5
California Court of Appeal, 2022
People v. Perez CA6
California Court of Appeal, 2014
The People v. Manafov CA3
California Court of Appeal, 2013
Dubin v. Robert Newhall Chesebrough Trust
116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 872 (California Court of Appeal, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
201 Cal. App. 2d 90, 19 Cal. Rptr. 891, 1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 2568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/froomer-v-drollinger-calctapp-1962.