Easements

This decision holds that the trial court erred in denying defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion to strike this malicious prosecution action.  While the defendants made a bunch of mistakes in conducting the underlying quiet title action, they did not lack probable cause because two instruments describing the same easement signed by the same grantor gave conflicting information about the easement's temporal duration. … Read More

This decision holds that the trial court erred in granting defendant summary judgment against plaintiff's claim to quiet title to a railroad easement across plaintiff's property benefiting defendant's parcel.  Plaintiff claimed the railroad had abandoned the easement.  Abandonment depends on cessation of use of the easement for permitted purposes and the easement owner's intent not to use the easement in… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply the merger doctrine to void a driveway easement which was the only means of access to the plaintiff's property.  Defendant had owned both adjoining parcels at one point, but had promptly taken out a loan on the property benefited by the easement--a loan that probably wouldn't have been… Read More

An exclusive implied easement which, for all practical purposes, amounts to fee title cannot be justified or granted unless: 1) the encroachment is “de minimis” or 2) the easement is necessary to protect the health or safety of the public or for essential utility purposes. Here, a wall erected on what the prior owner of both adjoining lots thought was… Read More

An easement to grow crops on and use land for pasturage was broad enough to permit the dominant tenant to grow grass and ornamental shrubs and plants in the easement.  The easement also allowed construction, maintenance and use of roads across but not along the easement.  This decision holds that that part of the easement allowed construction of three paved… Read More

Plaintiff successfully sued defendant for violating a conservation easement on his property.  The trial court awarded plaintiff $2.9 million in attorney fees for five years of hard-fought litigation and a 19-day trial.  This decision affirms the award.  Plaintiff could recover fees for all hours spent by its attorneys though the first $500,000 in fees was paid for by its insurance. … Read More

Before 2011, one person owned both of two adjoining lots.  Tenants on one of the lots used portions of the adjoining lot for access, parking, and garbage removal, and as a garden.  After 2011, different lenders foreclosed on the two lots, separating their ownership.  Plaintiff bought one of the lots and sued to keep the tenants of the other lot… Read More

Before enactment of Civ. Code 1009(b) in 1972, an offer to dedicate private land to public use could be implied by law when the public used the land openly and continuously, as if the users believed the public had a right to do so, without objection by the landowner.  This decision affirms a decision denying a claim to quiet title… Read More

An easement providing the grantee with access, ingress, and egress to vehicles and pedestrians over a ten-foot wide strip of property is sufficiently definite so as not to be limited to its historic limited use, but rather may be used in any reasonable manner, including for future developments that may increase use of the easement without unduly burdening it. Read More

Homeowners association could not invoke the Davis-Stirling Act to pursue claims in its own name without joining its individual owners since that Act only applies if the homeowners have mutual or reciprocal easements appurtenant to their separate interests (which was not true in this case). Read More

Homeowners association could not invoke the Davis-Stirling Act to pursue claims in its own name without joining its individual owners since that Act only applies if the homeowners have mutual or reciprocal easements appurtenant to their separate interests (which was not true in this case). Read More

Plaintiff is not entitled to an equitable easement over a disputed area of an adjoining property owner's land because plaintiff was negligent in planting the disputed area with a permanent crop (pistachio trees) while being aware of a boundary dispute but failing to investigate it.  Read More