Hinrichs v. Melton
11 Cal. App. 5th 516
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff Leslie Hinrichs owns a landlocked northern parcel (inherited 1993) after selling the southern parcel in 1999; the southern parcel retained a reserved easement that connected to a historic trail but Hinrichs lacked rights over neighboring parcels.
- Neighboring parcels: Melton to the north/east, Asquith (southern parcel) to the south, and Valiulis to the east; no parcel has direct public-road access — access runs from Thacher Road via private Ladera Road and Ladera Ridge/Hermitage Roads.
- Hinrichs sought access along a historic unpaved trail crossing Melton, Asquith and Valiulis parcels; Asquith’s deed reserved an easement intended to connect via that trail.
- Valiulis blocked the trail entrance with boulders and barbed wire (mid-2000s) and testified he intended to exclude everyone; trial court found any trail easement over Valiulis had been extinguished by adverse possession.
- Trial court granted (a) an easement by necessity over Asquith (largely along an existing driveway) and (b) a small equitable easement over Melton under a balancing-of-hardships test; denied easements over Valiulis and denied prescriptive or patent-based easement claims.
- All parties appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and each party to bear its own costs.
Issues
| Issue | Hinrichs' Argument | Melton/Asquith/Valiulis' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Prescriptive easement over historic trail | Hinrichs: longstanding open, continuous use dating back decades (or earlier) established prescription | Defendants: plaintiff failed to meet burden; evidence insufficient or not credible | Court: affirmed trial court — plaintiff failed to prove prescriptive easement; trier of fact may reject testimony/evidence |
| 2) Easement appurtenant in U.S. patent conveyance | Hinrichs: patent’s reference to "appurtenances" created an easement | Defendants: word "appurtenances" does not create an easement absent proof an easement existed at conveyance | Court: affirmed — patent wording alone does not create an easement; plaintiff failed to prove existence at time of patent |
| 3) Adverse possession extinguishing trail easement (Valiulis parcel) | Hinrichs: any blocking occurred within 5 years; not open/hostile enough to extinguish | Valiulis: placed boulders/fence and intended exclusion; acts were open, notorious, hostile and continuous | Court: affirmed trial court — substantial evidence supports adverse possession extinguishing any easement over Valiulis |
| 4) Equitable easement over Melton parcel (balancing hardships) | Hinrichs: needs access; historic trail preferable; hardship of being landlocked outweighs servient owner harm | Melton: no prior use; court should not impose equitable easement; need for takings/Fifth Amendment analysis; plaintiff negligent | Court: affirmed — equitable easement may be imposed without preexisting use; trial court reasonably balanced hardships and found Hinrichs innocent; no facial takings analysis required and compensation mechanisms exist |
| 5) Easement by necessity over Asquith parcel & route selection | Hinrichs: historical trail is superior route; Asquith easement unnecessary or should follow historic trail and minimize construction | Asquith: necessity exists; route chosen must respect current uses (olive orchard, driveway) and be least disruptive | Court: affirmed — easement by necessity proper; court reasonably selected route using existing driveway and minimized disruption |
| 6) Costs and section 998 offers | Hinrichs: he prevailed (access relief) and should recover costs and sanctions under §998 | Defendants: trial court has discretion when relief is nonmonetary; no mandatory costs | Court: affirmed — trial court properly exercised discretion under CCP §1032(a)(4) to deny costs; §998 remedial provisions not controlling here |
Key Cases Cited
- Linthicum v. Butterfield, 175 Cal.App.4th 259 (Cal. Ct. App.) (equitable easement via balancing of hardships; not strictly limited to preexisting use)
- Tashakori v. Lakis, 196 Cal.App.4th 1003 (Cal. Ct. App.) (rejects requirement that equitable easement rests on long-standing encroachment)
- Shoen v. Zacarias, 237 Cal.App.4th 16 (Cal. Ct. App.) (caution in imposing equitable easements; disparity of harms must be significant)
- McFarland v. Kempthorne, 545 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.) ("appurtenances" in federal patent does not create easement absent existing easement at conveyance)
- Kellogg v. Garcia, 102 Cal.App.4th 796 (Cal. Ct. App.) (easement by necessity survives so long as necessity exists)
- Glatts v. Henson, 31 Cal.2d 368 (Cal.) (owner of servient estate can extinguish easement by adverse possession through adverse use)
- Connolly v. McDermott, 162 Cal.App.3d 973 (Cal. Ct. App.) (elements of prescriptive easement)
- Sorensen v. Costa, 32 Cal.2d 453 (Cal.) (hostility in adverse possession need not involve dispute; silence can be adverse)
- Pipkin v. Der Torosian, 35 Cal.App.3d 722 (Cal. Ct. App.) (elements for easement by necessity)
- Wakefield v. Bohlin, 145 Cal.App.4th 963 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses prevailing-party analysis when relief nonmonetary)