Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: Presumption of Abandonment

A fee simple in real property can never be abandoned. See the California Supreme Court decision in Gerhard v. Stephens (1968) published at 68 Cal.2d 864. The Court held that neither a fee simple nor what it called "corporeal hereditaments" in land can be abandoned, whereas "incorporeal hereditaments" such as mineral rights can be abandoned.

If property is capable of being abandoned, the presumption of abandonment arises from a combination of what is called "nonuser" and the owner's clear and unequivocal intent to abandon.

When personal property is abandoned, ownership can be acquired by the first appropriator. This is not so with real property; when an interest in real property which can be abandoned is in fact abandoned, that right merges back into the estate from which it was carved. When subsuface mineral rights are abandoned, they revert back to the owner of the surface.

So, neither you nor anyone else is going to be able to claim title to this building based upon a theory of abandonment; it simply cannot happen, even if City Schools wanted it to.

Estoppel theories won't work, either.

School districts ordinarily keep close tabs on their real property assets, and this district is probably holding on to this property either for a future need, or to sell it for a large profit when the time is right. Another possibility is that the building cannot be sold under the terms of a gift or grant.

You would be better off negotiating with City Schools than looking for a legal theory under which to claim the property.