Oct. 10, 1863. Center: Indenture Between John Center and the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad Company.
“John Center . . . for and in consideration of encouraging and promoting the construction of a Railroad from the City of San Francisco to the City of San Jose . . . , and the sum of One Dollar to him in hand paid. . . , Does grant, bargain and sell convey and confirm . . . All of the following real estate . . . . The land hereby conveyed to be used and employed by said Company for Railroad purposes only and when not so used . . . the same shall revert to said grantor or his legal representatives.” [Quoted in the March 8, 1913, Indenture Between the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and the John Center Company.] (link)
March 8, 1912. Court: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree.
“Parcel 50 (Described as Parcels 27, 28 and 29 in the complaint) . . . : [S]aid parcels of land were conveyed by John Center, in the year 1863, to the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad Company, predecessor of Plaintiff, for the right of way for its railroad . . . ; that in and by the deed of conveyance of said right of way executed by said John Center it was expressly provided that in the event the use of said land as a right of way for said railroad should be at any time abandoned or should at any time be discontinued for a period of six months, the title and right to the possession thereof should revert to the grantor, to-wit, John Center . . . ; George S. Crim, Wm. H. Crim, Grace M. Crim, Samuel M. Crim and Wm. H. Crim, Jr., successors to said John Center, are . . . the owners of the fee . . . to that part of said Parcel 28 lying South of a line parallel to the Southerly line of Twenty-second Street and distant 260 feet Southerly therefrom . . . , subject only to the right of way of Plaintiff herein for railroad purposes . . . ; [T]he John Center Company, successor to said John Center, is . . . the owner of the fee to the remainder of said Parcel 28, subject only to the right of way of Plaintiff herein for railroad purposes, and subject to the conditions hereinabove mentioned.” (link)
Feb. 16, 1934. Center: Certificate of Election of the John Center Company To Wind Up and Dissolve.
“[T]he shareholders . . . have elected . . . that said corporation shall wind up its affairs and voluntarily dissolve.” (link)
April 25, 1934. Center: Certificate of Winding Up and Dissolution of the John Center Company, a California Corporation.
“The John Center Company . . . has been completely wound up, its known assets distributed . . . , and . . . is therefore dissolved.” (link)
Feb. 6, 1937. Court: Decree Settling Twelfth and Final Account and Supplementary Account of the Bank of California, National Association, Trustee Under the Will of George L. Center, and of Final Disposition.
“Because of the number of persons entitled to distribution, it is impossible for said Trustee to distribute the trust property in kind, and in consequence it will be necessary for said Trustee to sell the said trust property and to distribute the proceeds.” (link)
1967 to 1978. San Francisco: Sales Ledger for Block No. 3639.
[No entry for lot 36.] (link)
Dec. 21, 1987. Crim: Notice of Intent to Preserve Interest.
“This notice is intended to preserve an interest in real property from extinguishment pursuant to . . . Marketable Record Title.” (link)
Oct. 24, 1991. Heinzer: Quitclaim Deed.
“George Allan Center does hereby remise, release and forever quitclaim to Ernest R. Heinzer & James W. Heinzer, as tenancy in common, the following described Real Property . . . .” (link)
Oct. 24, 1991. Heinzer: Notice of Intent to Preserve Interest.
“This notice is intended to preserve an interest in real property from extinguishment pursuant to . . . Marketable Record Title.” (link)
Oct. 29, 1991. Interstate Commerce Commission: Southern Pacific Transportation Co.—Abandonment and Discontinuance of Trackage Rights Exemption—In San Francisco County, CA.
“The Commission exempts . . . Southern Pacific Transportation Company’s (1) Abandonment . . . and (2) discontinuance of trackage rights . . . subject to standard labor protective conditions, an historic preservation condition, and a salvage condition.” (link)
Aug. 26, 1992. Southern Pacific: Notice of Pendency of Action (Lis Pendens).
“Please take notice that . . . plaintiff is seeking to quiet title to certain real property located in the block between 22nd and 23rd Streets and Harrison Street and Treat Avenue . . . . The complaint alleges quiet title, trespass and slander of title.” (link)
Sept. 16, 1992. California Public Utilities Commission: Decision 92-09-067.
“The ICC has jurisdiction over the abandonment of Old Main Line rail service . . . . The Commission lacks jurisdiction to order SPT to sell the latter’s property to the Heinzers . . . . The complaint should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.” (link)
Jan. 27, 1993. Southern Pacific: First Amended Complaint for Quiet Title, Trespass and Slander of Title.
“Plaintiff has used the Treat Avenue Property in a manner inconsistent with a claim to a mere easement and . . . has acted as owner of the property for in excess of fifty years. Among other things, Plaintiff has paid taxes on the Treat Avenue Property for more than fifty years; has leased a portion of the Property on which a lumber storage facility has been maintained for approximately forty-five years; has leased another portion of the Property to billboard companies, which have maintained two commercial billboards on the Property for approximately thirteen years; and sold a parcel of land originally comprising part of the Property to the parents of Defendants Ernest R. Heinzer and James W. Heinzer, while retaining the mineral rights in the land conveyed . . . . Plaintiff Southern Pacific Transportation Company accordingly prays for judgment . . . that Plaintiff is the owner in fee simple of the Treat Avenue Property.” (link)
April 12, 1993. Heinzer: Notice of Pending Action Re the Heinzer Defendants’ First Amended Cross-Complaint to Quiet Title and for Other Relief in Action No. 945470.
“A First Amended Cross-Complaint to Quiet Title and for Other Relief (the ‘Cross-complaint’) is now pending in this action that affects title . . . . The object of the Cross-complaint is to quiet title to the Property . . . .” (link)
Sept. 3, 1993. Southern Pacific: Restatement of Material Facts in Support of Plaintiff Southern Pacific’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the First Cause of Action for Quiet Title; and for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication, as to the Heinzer Defendants’ Cross-Complaint.
“[T]he 1863 Deed has been properly authenticated under Evidence Code § 643, and . . . there is no genuine issue of fact as to the terms of the 1863 Deed . . . . Where all of the parties, including the Heinzers, have relied upon this identical language, and where a judgment issued prior to the 1912 Judgment confirms it, the fact that the 1912 Judgment paraphrased the language does not create a genuine issue of fact.” (link)
Oct. 26, 1993. Court: Order Regarding Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication of Issues.
“Southern Pacific has failed to establish as a matter of law that it owns the property in fee simple . . . . Southern Pacific claims no interest in the Crim portion of the property . . . . No issue of material fact is raised by the Heinzers’ claims of an interest in the property through adverse possession and prescription because no interest in the property could arise through adverse possession and prescription, as a matter of law.” [The order about adverse possession and prescriptive easement was vacated on May 17, 1994.] (link)
Nov. 18, 1993. Southern Pacific: John R. Hetland Deposition.
“Q. How do you know that the document that Southern Pacific is proposing as the 1863 deed is a copy of the 1863 deed?
A. I don’t, I mean, with one hundred percent assurance, I have no way of knowing that, any more than anybody would have any way of saying it isn’t. There was an 1863 deed. This is one that has all the right parties, the right land, creates the right interests, and is consistent with what was reestablished in that judgment. It’s identical to what was rerecorded in 1913, and at times very close, when the parties did have things that nobody questioned. So the possibility that it is not the true 1863 deed is almost nil.” (link)
[Date missing] Southern Pacific: Appendix A. Heinzers’ Purported Claim of Title.
“[I]nterest would have been sold when assets distributed on dissolution . . . . [A]ny interest would have been sold pursuant to court order.” (link)
Dec. 3, 1993. Court: Tentative Ruling.
“Heinzer . . . indicated that discovery is not complete. Should Heinzer be able to produce documents which dispute the documents submitted by Southern Pacific, this motion for judgment on pleadings will be denied. If no further documents exist, the motion will be granted.” (link)
Dec. 3, 1993. Court: Stipulation and Order Regarding Bifurcation of Issues at Trial.
“The trial shall take place in two phases. In the first phase of trial, the Court shall determine the parties’ record title to the property . . . . This phase of the trial will not include determination of any adverse possession or prescription claims, not shall it include determination of Southern Pacific’s claims for slander of title and trespass . . . . The trial in this action is hereby bifurcated . . . .” (link)
Dec. 10, 1993. Court: Order Granting Southern Pacific Transportation Company’s Judgment on the Pleadings as to the First Cause of Action of the Heinzer Defendants’ Cross-Complaint to Quiet Title and the Heinzers’ Ninth Affirmative Defense of Paramount Title.
“The Heinzers have no claim to any interest in the Property based upon record title.” (link)
Dec. 13, 1993. Southern Pacific: Declaration of Ken Kuwayati in Support of Motion for Sanctions.
“[A]n employee from Southern Pacific’s title department . . . retrieved documents from . . . the Recorder’s office . . . . The documents showed the Heinzers’ purported interest in the property was sold in 1925.” (link)
Jan. 5, 1994. Court: Order Denying Southern Pacific’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to C.C.P. § 128.5 and C.C.P. § 2023.
“Southern Pacific’s Motion for Sanctions . . . is hereby denied.” (link)
March 1, 1994. Court: Tentative Decision on Bifurcated Issue of Plaintiff’s Title.
“The Court finds that the parties are bound by the 1912 judgment . . . under the Destroyed Land Records Relief Law of 1906, commonly referred to as the McEnerney Act. Under the terms of the Act, a judgment is conclusive of a party’s record title to property so adjudicated . . . . [T]he Court finds that under the judgment, Plaintiff took an easement for the right of way and not a fee interest in the property.” [The tentative decision became the decision on Aug. 17, 1994.] (link)
March 8, 1994. Court: Order starting a 90-day limitation period.
“[T]he 90-day limitation period for the resolution of the Heinzers’ Motion . . . and the Crims’ Motion . . . shall commence . . . .” (link)
May 17, 1994. Court: Order Denying the Heinzer Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Claims and Defenses by Southern Pacific Based on Adverse Possession.
“[T]he motion is hereby denied.” (link)
May 17, 1994. Court: Order Granting Motion by the Heinzer Defendants Re Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues.
“[T]his Court’s Order, filed October 26, 1993, granting summary adjudication of issues as to . . . adverse possession and prescriptive easement, is hereby vacated.” (link)
Aug. 17, 1994. Court: Statement of Decision.
“The Court finds that the parties are bound by the 1912 judgment . . . under the Destroyed Land Records Relief Law of 1906, commonly referred to as the McEnerney Act. Under the terms of the Act, a judgment is conclusive of a party’s record title to property so adjudicated . . . . [T]he Court finds that under the judgment, Plaintiff took an easement for the right of way and not a fee interest in the property.” (link)
Sept. 20, 1994. Court: Order Denying the Crim Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication as to the Heinzer Defendants’ Cross-Complaint.
“[T]he Court hereby denies the Crims’ motions based on Abar v. Rogers (1972) 23 Cal. App. 3d 505, and on . . . a disputed issue of material fact.” (link)
Nov. 8, 1996. Southern Pacific: Disclaimer and Release of Interest in Real Property and Withdrawal of Notice of Pending Action.
“Southern Pacific . . . disclaims and releases any and all right, title, and interest in and to that certain real property . . . and covenants that neither Southern Pacific Transportation Company nor any of its parent, subsidiary, and affiliated corporations will file, pursue, or pursue further any suit asserting any claim of right, title, or interest in or to the property . . . .” (link)
Nov. 12, 1996. Southern Pacific: Request for Dismissal.
“Request for Dismissal: Type of Action . . . Quiet Title.” (link)
Nov. 13, 1996. Heinzer: Request for Dismissal.
“Request for Dismissal: Type of Action . . . Quiet Title . . . . This request will not impair, prejudice, or limit the Heinzers’ right to pursue a quiet title action against ‘all persons’ claiming any right, title, or interest in the Treat Avenue Property.” (link)
May 30, 2003. Heinzer: California Grant Deed.
“James Watson Heinzer hereby grant(s) to the James Watson Heinzer and Barbara Guldin Heinzer AB Living Trust the following real property . . . : A reversionary right of fee simple ownership and easement of part of Mission block #139; also referred to as part of lot #36, block 3639, volume #24 in the official records of the Assessor.” (link)
May 29, 2007. State Board of Equalization, State-Assessed Properties Division: List of Land Changes in San Francisco County for the 2007 Board Roll.
“Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . To Be Removed . . . Reasons for Change . . . A) Heinzer, B) Unknown, C) Unknown.” (link)
Nov. 12, 2010. CBS Outdoor: Application for Building Permit: Additions, Alterations or Repairs.
“Approved for voluntary remove of one north-facing freestanding 6′ × 12″ general ad sign per plans.” (link)
2016. San Francisco: Map of Block 3639.
“36: S.B.E.” (link)
Aug. 18, 2018. San Francisco: Escape Property Tax Bill (Secured). (link)
July 30, 2019. San Francisco: Defaulted Property Tax Statement—Secured Prior Years.
“Balance through July 31, 2019: $17,930.15” (link)