California Surveyors Forums

Just published CA Appellate decision which is worthwhile read regarding ingress/access, historic use, extrinsic evidence and bona fide purchasers.

That case is great reading if for no other purpose than the various peripheral issues raised along with citations related to multiple facets of "intent"; contracts, overburdening an easement, unambiguous language, extrinsic evidence, and reasonable interpretation. Some of these seemed to be pretty basic concepts that the trial court just didn't seem to get. I like this one:

"An ambiguity is not apparent from the “failure” to specify how frequently the road can be used. It would be unusual for a residential ingress-egress easement to quantify the number of trips allowed per day, week, or month. Similarly, it would be unusual for such a residential easement to specify the type of vehicle allowed on the road."

i must have read thousands of easements and agree that it's more unusual to put all that detail in than to just use the conventional ingress/egress wording. Whatever the convention is will most certainly be the norm in the eyes of the courts, right? Again, not sure what the trial court was thinking.

Thanks for sharing Steffan. Glad I actually found the time to read one of these while it's fresh. They usually get deposited in some "future read" folder.

Dave Ryan
Arcata