The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.
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
