PropertyEasements and covenants
Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist
Supreme Court of California · Decided July 11, 1972
Full citation
Willard v. First Church of Christ, 498 P.2d 987 (Cal. 1972).
Quote pages are pages of 7 Cal. 3d 473, the official report, so quotes and pinpoints cite it; for 498 P.2d 987, find the page in that reporter.
VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.
Donald E. Willard et al.
buyer of the lotsplaintiffs and respondents
First Church of Christ, Scientist, Pacifica, California
churchdefendant and appellant
Brief
Facts
Genevieve McGuigan owned two abutting lots in Pacifica, lots 19 and 20. A building stood on lot 19, and lot 20 was vacant. McGuigan belonged to the church, which sat across the street, and she let it use lot 20 for parking during services. She sold lot 19 to Petersen, who wanted to resell it and listed it with Willard, a realtor. Willard wanted both lots. He and Petersen signed a deposit receipt for both and opened an escrow, into which Petersen delivered a deed for both lots in fee simple. Petersen did not yet own lot 20, so he asked McGuigan to sell it to him. She agreed, but only if the church could keep using it for parking. The church's attorney drafted a clause making the conveyance subject to an easement (a right to use another's land) for parking during church hours, for the church's benefit, lasting only while the church property was used for church purposes. McGuigan testified that she cut her price by about one-third because of the easement. Petersen recorded that deed. Willard paid into the escrow and received Petersen's deed 10 days later. That deed did not mention an easement. Petersen told Willard the church would want to use lot 20 for parking, but apparently did not tell him about the clause. Willard learned of it several months later.
Issues
- Should California keep the common law rule that a grantor cannot, in deeding land to one person, effectively reserve an interest in the land to a stranger to the title?
- Should the old rule still be applied to defeat the church's easement in a deed made before the court's decision, given Willard's claim that grantees and title insurers relied on it?
- Did a clause making the grant subject to the church's easement give the church an interest, even though it did not say the easement was excepted or reserved?
Holding
The court abandoned the common law rule against reservations in favor of strangers to the title. On this record there was no showing of reliance and no ancient title, so the old rule could not defeat McGuigan's intent, and the clause vested the parking easement in the church.
IRAC
Learn the citation form
Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.
The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/willard-v-first-church-of-christ-scientist