California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1105 (2026)
Effect of Transfer
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A fee simple title is presumed to be intended to pass by a grant of real property, unless it appears from the grant that a lesser estate was intended.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1952–2022 · leading case: City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court, 914 P.2d 160 (Cal. 1996).
City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court, 914 P.2d 160 (Cal. 1996). “) 9 We therefore turn to the statutory rules governing the interpretation of deeds to determine if they contain an answer to the stalemate. 10 To begin, the law presumes “[a] fee simple title is .”
Protestant Episcopal Church v. Barker, 115 Cal. App. 3d 599 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “Code, § 662; Civ. Code, § 1105.) Since the disputed properties are held in the names of the local church organizations, the latter presumptively own the full beneficial interest in these properties, unless the general church organizations succeed in establishing their claims to…”
Citizens for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson, 906 P.2d 1314 (Cal. 1995). “(Civ. Code, § 1105.) [1] In addition, as provided by statute, the grantor of a grant deed covenants that the grantor has made no other encumbrance or conveyance of the property conveyed.”
MacHado v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 233 Cal. App. 3d 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). “Code, § 1070); and most importantly, a fee simple title is presumed to be intended to pass by a grant of real property, unless it appears from the grant that a lesser estate was intended (Civ.”
Am. Enter., Inc. v. Van Winkle, 246 P.2d 935 (Cal. 1952). “*220 American Enterprise, by grant deed conveyed its interest in the property to Sam Neider, its president, who in turn conveyed the property to the city of Oakland.”
Basin Oil Co. v. City of Inglewood, 271 P.2d 73 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954). “(Civ. Code, § 1105.) On the other hand, reasonable minds could scarcely disagree that the intention of the contracting parties was for the property to be used as a public street.”
Concord & Bay Point Land Co. v. City of Concord, 229 Cal. App. 3d 289 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). “The parties refer us to a number of general principles to assist in the analysis: a grant of real property is presumed to convey a fee simple title unless it appears from the grant a lesser estate was intended.”
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Union Pac. R.R., 50 Cal. App. 4th 987 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). “” (Civ. Code, § 1105.) This granting clause cannot be construed to describe an easement, which is an interest in the land of another, but not an estate in land.”
Highland Realty Co. v. City of San Rafael, 298 P.2d 15 (Cal. 1956). “It is of course true, as defendants point out, that “A fee simple title is presumed to be intended to pass by a grant of real property, unless it appears from the grant that a lesser estate was intended.”
Pariani v. State of California, 66 Oil & Gas Rep. 169 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). “Code, § 1084), their predecessors received a fee simple (Civ. Code, § 1105), including “the right to the surface and to everything permanently situated beneath or above it” (Civ.”
Develop-Amatic Eng'g v. Repub. Mortg., 12 Cal. App. 3d 143 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970). “(Civ. Code, § 1105; Cavanaugh v. High, 182 Cal.”
Schwenn v. Kaye, 82 Oil & Gas Rep. 30 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). “’’No reservation of rights or other limiting language appeared in the deed. A fee simple title is presumed to pass by a grant of real property, unless it appears from the grant that a lesser estate was intended.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.