Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: Easement on common road

You have many theoretical bases for arguing you have a valid easement -- e.g., precriptive easement, easement by necessity, implied easement, and more. I am very experienced with this area of law and you should call me if you are ready to select an attorney. Thank you for your consideration.

Re: Easement on common road

This sounds like a law school hypothetical.

You have asked a lot of questions, and I will try to answer issues concerning a very complicated area of the law with this limited space.

First, let's address something you said that doesn't make much sense. You said that "A decided to put up a gate over this common road over his property then issued a license to use to parcel owners A-F blocking G from use of road." This makes no sense. If A-F have easement rights, those rights cannot be arbitrarily and unilaterally extinguished and replaced with a license. An easement and a license are two very different animals. An easement is an incorporeal interest in property that can be transferred just as title can be transferred. A license is none of those.

If G's property is truly landlocked, G has either an implied easement or an easement by necessity. Either will defeat G's quiet title claim.

If the road in question existed prior to the creation of parcels A thru G when all land was owned by same person, then G will likely have an easement by implication or an easement of necessity.

After the parcels were partitioned, the common road continues to exist, but each parcel's right to use the road differs depending upon what was actually transferred with title and how the land is laid out. For example, Owner A cannot block Owner G from accessing Land G if the only way to get to Land G is over Owner A's property.

Title and boundary disputes are complicated. There are perhaps title insurance issues to consider as well. If you are involved in a lawsuit, you should seek out the advice of competent counsel.

We are real property litigators with extensive experience in title and easement disputes. If you would like a no charge consult, please feel free to call or email us.

Good luck.

***No Legal Services or Attorney Client Relationship - Although this email may provide information concerning potential legal issues, it is not a substitute for legal advice from qualified counsel. You should not and are not authorized to rely on this email as a source of legal advice. Until a formal Retainer Agreement is executed, any communication between you and The Guerrini Law Firm cannot create any attorney-client relationship between you and The Guerrini Law Firm.***

Re: Easement on common road

An implied easement and an easement by necessity are two terms for the same thing (in this situation) and a court would readily apply that theory to your facts provided this road is the only access to the property, and I assume it is since you say you are otherwise landlocked.

The other very obvious and easily proven theory is a prescriptive easement. However, for extra points on the law-school exam, you'll need to point out that one cannot obtain an easement by prescription over a road in which one already holds an easement (e.g., an implied easement) because the required element of "hostility" of the use is not present. So, it's one or the other, not both, on which you'll win, but surely this is a winnable case.

Finally, there may be other theories - I would discuss "equitable easement" (a preferred term is "easement by estoppel" because it's a little more precise in that it describes the kind of equitable factors involved). This approach works if Owner A (or his predecessor) stood by and allowed you to improve Parcel G without mention of your lack of rights.

Another theory that needs to be discussed is an action to correct errors in the deed to Parcel G. This could be easy or impossible, depending upon whether the error are obviously such, or not. I would say misdescription of the easement so that the ends don't match where it crosses from F to G would be an example of an obvious error. Omission of any mention of an easement would be more difficult, and would throw you back to the implied easement theory.

Finally, a law student answering this question should mention the circumstances under which the owner of the servient estate may place a gate across an easement, and when that's not permissible.