Irrevocable License of use

steffan · Post by **steffan** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:32 pm

Newly published appellate decision very worthy of consideration:

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 8:20 pm

Interesting case. I'm only on page 6 so far. They quote from Miller&Starr California Real Estate which is a treatise consisting of 4 or 5 feet of shelf space (binders).

Normally permission is fatal to these types of claims but here they call it an irrevocable license. California seems very loose, for example one of the most liberal on the Parole Evidence Rule. Except for the Agreed Boundary Doctrine as if alien beings from the planet ultra conservative got ahold of the Supreme Court for one day in 1994.

They say it's based in equity and estoppel.

But I babble and ramble.

steffan · Post by **steffan** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:20 am

Can always count on you Dave to take notice of these decisions. I took particular note that the court granted the full width of the existing ingress/eagress easement for the license size instead of only to the extent of usage.

Overall what I get from this case I equate to the quote taken from Romeo and Juliet: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name is just as sweet".

But sometimes not.

Dave Karoly, PLS · Post by **Dave Karoly, PLS** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 5:52 am

What's in a name?

It looks, acts and smells like an easement but it's a license.

The appellant wanted the trial judge's grant of the entire length declared an abuse of discretion but the appellate court declined to do so. Maybe it's related to the appellant doing self help (damaging the irrigation system).

steffan · Post by **steffan** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:19 am

Simple me. Would've thought irrevocable license was an oxymoron. Guess not.