Quality Plastics, Inc. v. Moore

640 P.2d 169, 131 Ariz. 238, 1981 Ariz. LEXIS 282
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 30, 1981
Docket15334
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 640 P.2d 169 (Quality Plastics, Inc. v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Quality Plastics, Inc. v. Moore, 640 P.2d 169, 131 Ariz. 238, 1981 Ariz. LEXIS 282 (Ark. 1981).

Opinion

HAYS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the appellee, Quality Plastics, Inc. (Quality), quieting title to a small parcel of land located in the city of Prescott. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 17A A.R.S. Civil Appellate Procedure Rules, Rule 19(e).

The property over which the parties claim ownership is situated in Block 21 of what is known as the Dameron Park Addition to the City of Prescott. Block 21 was originally owned and platted in 1926 by Quality’s predecessor in interest, Henry A. Dameron. Since 1926, Block 21 has been subdivided into a number of smaller parcels by virtue of various conveyances. The Yavapai County Assessor’s map purports to show the various parcels into which Block 21 has been subdivided. (See accompanying illustration; the block number is enclosed within a circle whereas the parcel numbers are enclosed within rectangles.) The appellants Moore own the parcels designated by the assessor as Parcels 19, 20 and 21. Quality owns the parcel designated as Parcel 23. The disputed property has been designated as Parcel 59 (shaded area on map).

In 1955, Dameron conveyed all unsold parcels in Block 21 to Henry Dameron, Jr., who in turn conveyed a parcel of the land to Leon and Grace Sexton in 1958. The description of this parcel (Parcel 23 on the assessor’s map) stated in pertinent part:

“[Tjhence West 350 feet to the Southwest corner of Blake Tract . . .; thence North along West line of said Blake Tract 105 *240 feet to Southeast corner of the Casady Tract .. . thence West along South line of said Casady Tract to a point on East right-of-way line of Third Street; ...” (Emphasis added).

It is this description which Quality contends included the disputed property. The correct distance from the southwest corner of the Blake Tract to the Casady Tract is 150 feet. Nevertheless, the description of “105 feet” appears in a 1959 conveyance from Sexton to Francis and Bernece Heck-ethorn, in a 1960 conveyance from Hecket-hom to Fred and Alva Perry, and finally, in the 1971 conveyance from Perry to Quality Plastics.

As a result of this discrepancy, it appeared as if an unconveyed strip of property existed between the Casady Tract and the property designated as Parcel 23. In 1964, the Yavapai County Assessor’s Office apparently noticed this discrepancy and plotted this strip as Parcel 59 on its map. On January 31, 1964, the assessor’s office issued a tax assessment on Parcel 59 and assessed the tax against Henry Dameron, Jr.

Dameron failed to pay the taxes and the property was sold by the Yavapai County Treasurer at a tax sale on January 25,1965. A Certificate of Purchase was issued to the vendee, Emmet L. Kaiser, Moores’ predecessor in interest. Kaiser paid the taxes for the next five years and applied for a treasurer’s deed pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-455, et seq. The treasurer’s office, proceeding on the assumption that Dameron, Jr., was the owner of the property, notified Dameron pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-456 that a treasurer’s deed had been applied for. Receipt of the notice signed by Dameron was received by the treasurer’s office. Public notice was also given pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-457. On August 3, 1970, the Yavapai County Treasurer issued a deed to Kaiser which described the property, in part, as follows:

“Dameron Park Addition — All unsold parcels in Block 21, ... less 3.50 A. to Sexton as 143/331 & less 1.46 to Perry 277/103 Sec. 33-2W. (Parcels No. 113-4-19 & 113 — 4-59)’’ (Emphasis added).

The reference to “less 3.50 A. to Sexton as 143/331” referred to the deed description in the Dameron, Jr.-to-Sexton conveyance which contained the discrepancy. The reference to “Parcels No. 113-4-19 & 113-4-59” referred to the assessor’s parcel numbers.

Finally, on October 24, 1977, Kaiser conveyed the disputed property to appellants. Patrick Moore was aware that there was a cloud on the title but went ahead with the purchase, feeling he could secure good title to the property. Moore attempted to acquire a quitclaim for any interest Quality had in the property but Quality refused. Quality thereafter filed this action to quiet title to the disputed property and the Moores filed an answer and counterclaim seeking to quiet title in themselves. After cross-motions for summary judgment were submitted, the trial court awarded the property to Quality.

On appeal, the Moores argue that Quality’s predecessor in interest, Sexton, acquired no interest in the parcel and that Moores’ predecessor in interest, Kaiser, obtained good title by virtue of the tax sale and deed. Alternatively, the Moores contend that even if the tax deed is defective, they nevertheless have title to the property by virtue of A.R.S. §§ 12-524 and 12-527.

The first issue to be resolved is whether the 1958 conveyance from Dameron, Jr., to Sexton effectively conveyed the disputed property. We hold that it did.

Where a deed contains a conflict in the description of boundaries to land, references to fixed monuments and natural objects control over distances. Bird v. Noon, 9 Ariz. 37, 76 P. 592 (1904); 12 Am. Jur.2d Boundaries, § 67. Because adjacent boundaries are regarded as monuments, Bird v. Noon, supra, the discrepancy contained in the deed from Dameron, Jr., to Sexton which stated “105 feet” should be disregarded and the reference to the “Casady Tract” should control.

*241 The Moores contend, however, that the location of the Casady Tract is uncertain and therefore one must revert to the distance of 105 feet to determine the location of the north boundary of Quality’s property. The description in the deed which conveyed the Casady parcel stated:

“A portion of Block Twenty One (21) in the ‘DAMERON PARK ADDITION’ A subdivision in Yavapai County, Arizona, Beginning at A point One Hundred and Twenty Five Feet (125) South of the south east corner of Lot Six (6) in Bloch [sic] Seventee [sic] (17) ...”

Examination of the assessor’s map, which designates the above-described Casady Tract as Parcel 21, leads to the conclusion that Block 18 rather than Block 17 was intended as the point of reference for describing Parcel 21. In fixing the location of the boundary lines of land, all words and descriptions used in the grant must be harmonized and given effect if possible. 12 Am.Jur.2d Boundaries, § 2. Here, a reading of the entire description makes it obvious that Block 18 rather than Block 17 was intended as a point of reference; thus, we find no uncertainty in the description of the Casady Tract.

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

Related

Dominguez v. Dominguez
567 P.3d 81 (Arizona Supreme Court, 2025)
Dominguez v. Dominguez
547 P.3d 1079 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2024)
Early Detection Center, Inc. v. Wilson
811 P.2d 860 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1991)
In Re Vantex Land and Development Co., Inc.
47 B.R. 261 (D. Arizona, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
640 P.2d 169, 131 Ariz. 238, 1981 Ariz. LEXIS 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quality-plastics-inc-v-moore-ariz-1981.