Easements

Subscribe to Easements via RSS

By Glen C. Hansen


In Pulido v. Pereira (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1246, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held that the prohibition for a public recreational easement on private property in Civil Code section 1009 did not preclude property owners from acquiring a prescriptive easement over a road on a neighbor’s property that they used to access their own land for private recreational purposes, where such owners were not engaging in any recreation on the neighbor’s property or passing through it to access a public recreational area.Continue Reading Statutory Prohibition Against Acquiring Public Recreation Easements By Prescription Does Not Apply Where The Easement Is Used By Private Persons To Access Their Own Property That They Use For Recreational Purposes

By Glen C. Hansen

Richardson v. Franc (January 27, 2015, A137815) ___ Cal.App.4th ___.

In Richardson v. Franc, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District affirmed a trial court’s granting of an irrevocable license in perpetuity to maintain and improve landscaping, irrigation, and lighting within the area of an express easement for…

Join Glen C. Hansen of Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, in a new class which discusses recent developments in resolving easement and boundary disputes in California. This is an advanced class aimed primarily at land surveyors, civil engineers, attorneys, and property owners. This intense, three‑hour class interprets and applies:

  • Easement Creation and Termination
  • Determining the

…

Join Glen C. Hansen of Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, in a new class which discusses recent developments in resolving easement and boundary disputes in California. This is an advanced class aimed primarily at land surveyors, civil engineers, attorneys, and property owners. This intense, three‑hour class interprets and applies:

  • Easement Creation and Termination
  • Determining the Scope of an Easement
  • Locating and Maintaining Boundary Dividers
  • Resolving Conflicting Surveys
  • Recently Enacted and Pending Legislation

Continue Reading REMINDER – NEW CLASS – Update on Easement Law and Boundary Disputes

By Glen Hansen 

In Brandt Trust v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 1257, 188 L.Ed.2d 272 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held that rights of way granted by the U.S. Government to railroads under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 constituted easements, and not reversionary interests held by the U.S. Government, such that when a right of way granted in 1908 under the 1875 Act was abandoned in 2004, the servient property for that right of way became unburdened by the easement and all property rights were then held by the patentee of the underlying land.Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds That U.S. Government Does Not Have A Reversionary Interest To Abandoned Railroad Right Of Ways Under 1875 Statute

By Glen Hansen

In Schmidt v. Bank of America (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1489, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that a trial court erred in granting summary judgment against claims by a servient property owner that alleged that the dominant property owner went beyond the scope of the reserved private easement for ingress and egress when it graded the easement and installed subsurface infrastructure on the easement area for the benefit of the adjacent condominium project that was built on the dominant property.Continue Reading Just Because The Easement Says “For Public Road Purposes” Does Not Mean It’s A Public Right-Of-Way

By Glen Hansen

Your neighbor builds (or wants to build) an ornate wall between your two properties. Then your neighbor emails to you the invoice, and asks you to contribute one-half the cost of the edifice. Do you have to pay if the cost of the wall is excessive in your opinion? What if you can barely afford half the cost of a chain link fence, let alone THAT wall? Prior to January 1, 2014, the law was not too helpful in answering those questions.Continue Reading So Your Neighbor Wants To Build An Ornate Wall Between Your Adjoining Properties – In The Absence Of An Agreement, Who Pays?

By Glen C. Hansen

In Windsor Pacific LLC v. Samwood Co. (January 30,2013, B233514) ___ Cal.App.4th ____, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held (1) that a prescriptive easement could not be established over two roads, where the facts in the case demonstrate that the party alleging the prescriptive use was equitably estopped from denying that its use of the roads was by permission; and (2) that a proceeding to interpret a written easement agreement in order to determine whether a party to the agreement is equitably estopped from claiming that its use of the subject property was permissive is an action to ‘enforce or interpret’ the agreement, for which an attorneys’ fees provision in the agreement applies, regardless of whether that interpretation was sought by the allegations of the complaint or by affirmative defenses in the answer.Continue Reading Court Strongly Reaffirms That No Prescriptive Easement Exists Where The Facts Demonstrate That The Use Of The Property Was By Permission

By Glen C. Hansen

In Wooster v. Department of Fish & Game (2012) 211Cal.App.4th 1020, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1250, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, held that a conservation easement recorded over 30 years ago is not extinguished or rescinded because the California Department of Fish and Game (“Department”) failed to post no hunting and no trespassing signs on the property as required by the conservation easement; nor is the grant of hunting rights to the Department (which allowed the Department to prohibit all hunting in the easement area) inconsistent with the statutes governing conservation easements.Continue Reading Court Holds That A Hunting Ban Is Unquestionably A Legitimate Aspect And Aim Of A Conservation Easement Granted To The Department Of Fish And Game

By Glen Hansen

The Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held in Cottonwood Duplexes, LLC v. Barlow(November 13, 2012, C069564) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, that a trial court may not order a partial extinguishment of an express easement based on a finding that the reasonable use requirements of the dominant tenement do not require the full size and scope of the original easement.Continue Reading An Express Easement Cannot Be Extinguished Merely Because A Court Thinks That The Holder No Longer Has Any Reasonable Need To Use The Easement