What Are Easements?

Useful Rulings on Easements

Recent Rulings on Easements

MATTHEW DE SANTIS VS A & B PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendants demur to the first cause of action arguing that Plaintiff’s allegations of exclusive use bars the claim for a prescriptive easement. Defendants assert that here, Plaintiff’s claim of a prescriptive easement fails because Plaintiff has alleged that Plaintiff fenced in and possessed the land in question. This allegation is fatal to the claim of prescriptive easement. Defendants also argue that the law does not permit an exclusive prescriptive easement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHERIE BELL KERR, TRUSTEE OF THE CHERIE BELL KERR TRUST DATED JUNE 20, 1991 V. THE LEGACY FUND

Since the Complaint appeared to have sought relief on only an express easement theory, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) (filed on 10-17-19 under ROA No. 132) that added causes of action for Breach of Easement, Prescriptive Easement, and Enforcement of Easement pursuant to Civil Code § 809. Paragraph 21 of the easement described the easement as “. . . express, implied and equitable.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA V. LAWRENCE P. GRASSINI, ET AL.

Plaintiff County has presented evidence of its immediate and permanent need for the Easement and its legal right to acquire the Easement through eminent domain. (Bensel decl., ¶¶2-17; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1240.110, 1240.120; Gov. Code, § 25350.5.) County has shown, and the court finds, that County is entitled to take the property, i.e., the Easement, by eminent domain. County has presented evidence of its deposit of $7,600.00. (Murphy decl., ¶ 2.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA V. TRUE HORIZONS, LLC, ET AL.

On November 5, 2018, County sent an offer for the parcels that are the subject of this action as well as a landscaping easement on Parcel 024.The offer was $138,000 and included a valuation summary complete with comparable sales. The landscaping easement on Parcel 024 was $56,000 of the value. [Phillips Dec.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

RAYMOND VILLAGE, LLC V. HILL RANCH PARTNERSHIP

Hill Ranch further alleges that Raymond Village’s allegation in its own Complaint about the dispute over the easement is false and made solely to enable Raymond Village to assert quiet title and file a lis pendens that impedes the sale of the Hill Ranch property. [Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 12-14.] These are the interfering and wrongful acts relied on by Hill Ranch for its interference and unfair business practices claims. [Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 17, 24, 31, 36.]

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

RICHARD WEGER ET AL VS MARY ALICE MEDINA

[CC ¶7] As consideration for the easement, Weger/Dagg agreed to allow Medina to attach a gate to a fence pole on Weger/Dagg’s property. [CC ¶8] The executed easement included the drainage easement, the easement for access for maintenance of vegetation, and the license to attach a gate to the fence. [CC second ¶8] After obtaining the easement, Weger/Dagg did not construct their condominium project and drainage improvements as depicted in the design documents and engineering studies presented to Medina.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ADAMS ANTIOCH WAREHOUSE VS. JASON WALKER

Plaintiff argues the easement had value and the City had no power to convey it without consideration. (Cal. Const., Art. XVI, § 6.) Plaintiff cites no authority for its claim that the City’s vacation of easement of the easement constituted a “sale” or “gift” of public property. Under S & H Code § 8309, the “vacation” means the complete or partial abandonment or termination of the public right to use a street, highway, or public service easement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

DAVID J. DOVICHI VS. JAMES V. DE LA VERGNE

Therein, the jury was instructed to answer questions regarding McCartney's involvement in the Bendahans' underlying lawsuit and her knowledge regarding the purported prescriptive easement. The jury reached its verdict on May 16, 2012, finding that McCartney was involved in the initial lawsuit, had knowledge of the facts needed to support the elements for a prescriptive easement, encouraged the lawsuit, and had acted with malice against the Dovichis.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TINE F. SLOAN V. GREGG PATRONYK

SI #1: “Please IDENTIFY all actions YOU have taken in any way since November 10, 2018, to facilitate the burying of the power lines that hang above the easement at issue in the REUMA. [IDENTIFY means: provide a description of the action and the date of the action.]” REUMA is defined as the Roadway Easement Use and Maintenance Agreement. In response, defendant says the interrogatory is irrelevant. He makes no effort to justify that objection.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT V. REGINALD E. DREW, JR., ET AL.

., and Wheel Fun Rentals of Santa Barbara County and others to obtain (1) a temporary construction easement, (2) a permanent non-exclusive access easement, and (3) fee title to portion of a larger parcel of real property (collectively, the Property). The Property is to be obtained in connection with the Lower Mission Creek Flood Control Project (Project). Drew is the fee owner of the property located at 315 Chapala Street in Santa Barbara (Chapala Parcel) of which the Property is a part.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

CREEKSIDE VILLAGE (AOF) LLC V. 518 AVENUE OF THE FLAGS, LLC.

Nature of Proceedings: Case Management Conference Quiet title (easement) issue. Request for Default (certain named defendants) submitted 6/29/20 – not processed/ discuss. Status of case/ dispute.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

JULIE GUILBAULT VS TWC ADMINISTRATION LLC ET AL

Amended Easement B.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ANNA AVENUE ASSOCIATES LLC VS. SANDAG

The Motion (ROA # 433) of Plaintiff San Diego Association of Governments ("SANDAG") for legal ruling under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1260.040 and 1258.280 against Defendants John Smith Earthworks, Inc. and Anna Avenue Associates, LLC (collectively referred to as "Anna Ave.") to exclude evidence of value for the temporary construction easement acquired by SANDAG in order to complete the San Diego River Double Track Project ("Project"), is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RICHARD J. STANLEY, TRUSTEE OF THE RICHARD J. STANLEY TRUST VS PETER JUEL, TRUSTEE OF THE PETER JUEL TRUST, ET AL.

There are a number of recorded easements on the Properties, including the right of way easement at issue. (Ibid.) The Right of Way easement provides direct vehicular access from Plaintiff’s property to Franklin Ave. (Ibid.) Defendants have denied Plaintiff’s legal right to use the Right of Way Easement. (Id. ¶ 12.) A present controversy thus exists between Plaintiff and Defendants regarding the Right of Way Easement. (Id. ¶ 14.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

WILLIAM CHARLES JONES JR VS THE REO GROUP INC ET AL

“A real property claim is any cause of action which, if meritorious, would affect: title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property; or the use of an easement identified in the pleading (other than an easement obtained pursuant to statute by any regulated public utility.” (Id.; Code Civ. Proc. § 405.4.) In determining whether a real property claim has been pled, the court must engage in a demurrer-like analysis. (Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SANTA BARBARA FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT VS N SCOTT VINCENT ET AL

Vincent, and others to obtain a temporary construction easement and a permanent easement for flood control purposes as to real property located at 325 Chapala Street, Santa Barbara (the Property). The Property is to be obtained in connection with the Lower Mission Creek Flood Control Project (Project). The complaint identifies Vincent, in his capacity as trustees of the three trusts, as the owner of the property, Photothermal as a lessee, and Sue F. Vincent as a possible claimant. (Complaint, p. 5.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

KAISHEEN HOLDINGS, LLC VS EVERELLE DEVELOPMENT, LP

Kaisheen argues that the balance of hardships favors its claim because it and the residents of Lot 10 have relied on the easement as a means of ingress and egress, relying on the trees on the easement as a means of privacy, and are at risk that Lot 10’s property value will be negatively affected by loss of the easement. App. at 19.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

TRIWEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC... VS SAM OSTAYAN; ET AL

Plaintiff alleges that these plans “referenced extensive road widening, retaining wall, and easement requirements (the ‘Road Widening Requirements’) that the City of Palos Verdes imposed on the project during the previous year to complete construction. The requirements were not otherwise known or disclosed to Plaintiff.” (Id.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff was not damaged by the alleged breach because Plaintiff knew about the road widening requirements prior to the closing of escrow.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DAVID J. DOVICHI VS. JAMES V. DE LA VERGNE

Therein, that court reversed the directed verdict in favor of McCartney on the grounds that the Bendahans' claim for prescriptive easement failed at the outset: even though the Bendahans alleged a prescriptive easement, the law does not allow such a claim in simple matters of residential boundary disputes because it would give the non-property owner (here, the Bendahans) a fee interest in the disputed land. (Id. at pp. 7-8.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PEOPLE V. MHC PONDEROSA

It is further understood that in the event an agreement to purchase is not reached on or before the expiration of the Temporary Easement, such failure will be an acknowledgement that the negotiations to acquire the Parcel and Temporary Easement have proved futile, and State shall, within 30 days after the expiration of the Temporary easement, file a complaint in eminent domain to acquire title to the Parcel and the Temporary Easement. (2nd Amended Cross-Complaint, Exhibit 1 – Possession and Use Agreement, paragraph

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

ALFREDO ROBLES VS CARLOS ZECENA

A real property claim is any cause of action “which would, if meritorious, affect (a) title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property or (b) the use of an easement identified in the pleading, other than an easement obtained pursuant to statute by any regulated public utility.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.4.) In this case, the FAC alleges that Zecena purchased the property and title for the property is in Zecena’s name. (FAC ¶ 9.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CITY OF TRACY, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS MICHAEL DURKEE ET AL.

The temporary construction easement area is supposedly shown on Exhibit B to the Complaint. It is illegible. Tracy City Council, by unanimous vote with no abstentions or absences voted by resolution of necessity 2019-231 to obtain the portion of the Durkee property by negotiation or failing that, eminent domain. Complaint, ¶ 5, Exh. C, page 3.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

ALAMEDA SQUARE OWNER LLC VS THE LOS ANGELES WHOLESALE PRODUCE MARKET, LLC

Accordingly, at least from the time of the filing of the original Complaint in the Related Case, Alameda was on notice that LAWPM had allegations relating to the 8th Street Easement and that blocked use of the 8th Street Easement interfered with its ability to access the other easements (Truck Easement and Track Street West Easement).

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

STATE ROUTE 4 BYPASS VS NUNN FAMILY

On the map attached to the complaint, this section is identified as an “irrigation easement”. (Comp. Ex. B.) Mr. Nunn was named as a defendant in this case, but was dismissed a week after the case was filed. It does not appear that Mr. Nunn was served with the complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

KEITH GARL V. ROBERT NICHOLSON, BEN FERRARI, ET AL.

The model Grant of Water Easement referred to in the Water Agreement is titled “Agreement and Grant of Easement for Water Infrastructure and Conveyance of Right to Exercise Water Rights” (the Model Easement Deed). (Reed Decl., Ex. B.) Defendants allege that the easements to be granted are described in Exhibit C to the Water Agreement. Plaintiff signed the Water Agreement and Model Easement Deed, and was receiving payments from PMWC for his transfer of the Weso water easements to PMWC.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 58     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.