Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Implied Easements

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Before enactment of Civ. Code 1009(b) in 1972, an offer to dedicate private land to public use could be implied by law when the public used the land openly and continuously, as if the users believed the public had a right to do so, without objection by the landowner.  This decision affirms a decision denying a claim to quiet title… Read More

Post-1972 public use of non-coastal land for any purpose cannot ripen into a prescriptive easement or implied dedication of the property.  Read More

The trial court properly exercised its discretion to decree an easement by necessity benefitting a landlocked parcel over a route that caused the least disruption to the adjoining owners' use of their properties.  Read More

Substantial evidence supported court's determination that plaintiff had not obtained sole ownership of the road easement between his property and defendant's; fence and gate did not constitute adverse possession because they had been erected by defendant’s predecessor to prevent plaintiff's mobile home park's tenants from crossing onto defendant's property.  Read More

Plaintiffs did not allege facts sufficient to show that defendant landowners impliedly dedicated a fire road over their land to public use, since fire roads are only temporary easements and do not alert the landowner to any risk that they could be surrendering property rights, and there was insufficient evidence that the road was constantly used by hikers.  Read More