Main Street Plaza v. Cartwright & Main, LLC
194 Cal. App. 4th 1044
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs own a retail center and sought a judicial declaration of a prescriptive easement for parking and access over an alley behind their property and two adjoining parcels.
- A railway easement over the same land existed, with taxes assessed separately on the railway easement and paid by BNSF; Main Street Plaza did not pay those taxes.
- Defendants Cartwright & Main and CREH moved for summary judgment/adjudication, asserting no prescriptive easement because taxes on the separately assessed railway easement were not paid.
- The trial court granted the motions, and judgment was entered in favor of the adjoining property owners; Main Street Plaza appealed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding that payment of taxes on the separately assessed railway easement is not an element of a prescriptive easement when the railway easement is not coextensive in use with the claimed easement.
- The court also reversed the summary judgment on CREH’s motion for failure to comply with CCP 437c(g) and held the record insufficient to review those issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tax payment as element of prescriptive easement | Main Street Plaza argues payment of taxes on the railway easement is not required for a prescriptive easement. | Cartwright & Main/CREH contend tax payment on the separately assessed railway easement is an essential element. | Tax payment is not required; not coextensive use controls. |
| Railway easement vs. prescriptive easement coextensivity | Railway easement use would not defeat a prescriptive easement over the same area. | Railway easement use and claimed prescriptive uses must be coextensive to create a prescriptive easement. | Railway easement not coextensive with the claimed prescriptive easement; prescriptive rights may arise notwithstanding other uses. |
| CCP 437c(g) compliance | N/A | CREH contends the orders failed to state reasons and cite supporting evidence as required by CCP 437c(g). | Noncompliance precluded meaningful appellate review; issues regarding CREH’s motion are not properly reviewed. |
| Reviewability of CREH's additional grounds | N/A | CREH argued additional grounds (lease impact and CUP/local laws) for summary judgment. | Arguments not addressed below due to 437c(g) issue; cannot be reviewed meaningfully on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glatts v. Henson, 31 Cal.2d 368 (Cal. 1948) (presumption no taxes on easement; taxes need not be paid)
- Gilardi v. Hallam, 30 Cal.3d 317 (Cal. 1981) (separate tax payment required only if easement separately assessed)
- Mehdizadeh v. Mincer, 46 Cal.App.4th 1296 (Cal. App. 1996) (prescriptive easement vs adverse possession distinction; tax payment not generally required)
- Santa Barbara Pistachio Ranch v. Chowchilla Water Dist., 88 Cal.App.4th 439 (Cal. App. 2001) (need for meaningful review when trial court's reasoning is unclear)
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 2001) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Ruoff v. Harbor Creek Community Assn., 10 Cal.App.4th 1624 (Cal. App. 1992) (harbors harmless error for lack of stated reasons when reviewable otherwise)