California Surveyors Forums

Some may find value in this just published appellate case which reversed several findings of the lower court. While it hinges more on the practice of law than surveying, it has several elements I think are worthy as a surveyor:

I was going through this case over the weekend. I wish we could get the maps and deeds for some of these cases. This would be on in particular. Dows anyone have access to the Nap County maps on this case?

I gave up reading it by Page 9. I wish they provided Executive Summaries with these trial court decisions.

Why didn't you say so?

McBride v. Smith

Docket: A147931(First Appellate District)
Opinion Date: January 4, 2018
Judge: Ignazio J. Ruvolo
Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The southern border of 1664 Spring Street, St. Helena, adjoins the northern border of 1670 Spring; 1660 Spring, adjoins the eastern border of 1670 and part of 1664. An alley connecting to the public street runs east below the southern border of 1660 and 1670 Spring. In 1993 the owner of 1670 granted the owner of 1664 an easement running with the land over the 12-foot strip of land along the eastern border of 1670. The recorded grant specified use limited to emergency or secondary ingress and egress. In 1998, the Smiths purchased 1670. By 2004, McBride owned 1664, and Vickers owned 1660. Vickers granted McBride a “driveway easement” within the western border of 1660 Spring. In a 2014 lawsuit, McBride alleged that her property at 1664 and the Smith property at 1670 share a driveway; for the past nine years, McBride and/or her predecessors have used the driveway, which is at least partially covered by a recorded right of way, for full ingress and egress and for emergency purposes; and the Smiths “erected permanent fixtures in said driveway to impede [McBride] and block her access to her property.” The court of appeal reversed dismissal of McBride’s claims for nuisance and prescriptive easement.

Glancing at it, it appears the Trial Court entered judgment without trial and the appellate court said wait just one minute, not so fast, you have to have the trial. So the case is not resolved yet.

Interesting case...the exact factual situation on the ground is not necessary to understand the case.

When I was reading the facts the claim of trespass on an easement seemed odd. Turns out the Court says trespass is not an appropriate claim in the case of an easement encumbering the alleged trespasser's own property. Nuisance is the correct allegation in the case of interference with an easement. Also McBride alleged a prescriptive easement.

The trial court sustained the demurrer to the fourth amended complaint, the appellate court said this is correct in the case of trespass but the trial court should hold a trial on the nuisance and prescriptive easement claims because they are proper claims and there are triable issues of fact.

Apparently the road goes down a boundary between two parcels to serve the Plaintiff's parcel. One of the two other parcels happened to be owned by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff claimed the blockage on Defendant's parcel forced her to "trespass" onto the other parcel which she owned (then later sold). The Court explains a person can't trespass on their own land since they have the right of possession, the right to be there.

When she sold the other parcel the Deed does not mention the easement over it. Normally appurtenant easements automatically transfer even if not mentioned but this raises a potential problem sometimes mentioned in Appellate opinions (not mentioned here because it's not an issue in the case). Under the Doctrine of Merger the easement would be extinguished under the Common Law so there is no appurtenant easement to transfer however it may arise by implication. Usually Courts are more friendly towards implied easements in Grantees and less friendly towards implied easements in Grantors but they do arise. It would be a research project to find out how California would handle this easement situation.

Under the common law if two parcels are held by one person they become one parcel, it doesn't treat parcels as entities, only people or corporations. Our current statutes such as the SMA tend to treat parcels as separate entities so that a person can own two adjoining parcels which are legally separate parcels; I don't think easement law has caught up to this reality. This is why Parcel Maps traditionally couldn't create private easements because a person can't have an easement on land that they own.

DK wrote: " This is why Parcel Maps traditionally couldn't create private easements because a person can't have an easement on land that they own."
DK: I think the following clarifies the above sentence in your post:
This is why Parcel Maps traditionally couldn't create private appurtenant easements between the parcels being created because a person can't have an easement on land that they own.




. Thanks for your continued insights.

Larry Stevens