McBride v. Smith
A147931
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Adjoining Napa County parcels: 1664 (McBride), 1670 (Smiths), and 1660 (neighbor). Two recorded easements affected access: a 12-foot "Secondary Access Easement" (limited to emergency/secondary ingress/egress) and a separate "Driveway Easement" benefitting 1664/1660.
- McBride alleged long‑standing daily use of the Secondary Access Easement as primary access and that the Smiths installed a bolted pole, chain, wood dividers, buried footings and other obstructions that block or unreasonably interfere with access to 1664.
- McBride pleaded causes of action for trespass, nuisance, and a prescriptive easement (plus other theories later abandoned). The Smiths demurred; the trial court sustained demurrers to all claims without leave to amend and entered judgment for the Smiths.
- On appeal McBride argued she had pleaded interference sufficient for trespass, nuisance and that her daily primary use supported a prescriptive expansion of the recorded easement. She also challenged the trial court’s award of attorney fees (the appellate court declined to reach fees after deciding other issues).
- The Court of Appeal: affirmed that trespass against the servient owner was not stated, reversed as to nuisance and prescriptive easement claims, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McBride stated a trespass claim | McBride: obstructions in the easement interfere with her use and thus constitute trespass to the easement | Smiths: McBride holds only an easement (nonpossessory); trespass requires exclusive possessory right or unauthorized entry onto plaintiff’s land | Held: Demurrer properly sustained — an easement holder lacks exclusive possession, so trespass against servient owner not stated |
| Whether McBride stated a nuisance claim | McBride: Smiths’ encroachments unreasonably and substantially interfere with McBride’s use/enjoyment of her property (and the easement) | Smiths: Pleadings/exhibits show no actual prevention of access; allegations contradicted by recorded instruments and exhibits | Held: Demurrer improperly sustained — allegations that encroachments obstructed the access/use raised triable issues whether interference was substantial and unreasonable; nuisance claim should proceed |
| Whether McBride stated a prescriptive easement claim | McBride: she and predecessors used the Secondary Access Easement daily for primary access for 5+ years, expanding beyond the recorded grant | Smiths: Recorded grant allowed use; express easement and exhibits show Driveway easement provided access; permissive or non‑adverse use precludes prescription | Held: Demurrer improperly sustained — allegations of daily primary use that exceeded the limited recorded grant were sufficient at pleading stage to raise triable issues of adverse, open, notorious, continuous use for five years |
| Whether appellate court should decide fee award | McBride: trial court erred in awarding attorney fees under the easement provision | Smiths: entitle to fees under recorded easement clause | Held: Not addressed — appellate court reversed on merits of nuisance and prescriptive claims and therefore did not reach McBride’s challenge to the attorney fees order |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Interlake Steel Co., 32 Cal.3d 229 (Cal. 1982) (trespass requires invasion of exclusive possessory interest)
- Kazi v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 24 Cal.4th 871 (Cal. 2001) (an easement is a nonpossessory, limited right to use another's land)
- Scruby v. Vintage Grapevine, Inc., 37 Cal.App.4th 697 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (scope of easement and servient owner’s retained rights; servient owner may use land so long as it does not unreasonably interfere)
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 893 (Cal. 1996) (nuisance requires substantial and unreasonable interference with use/enjoyment)
- Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc., 35 Cal.3d 564 (Cal. 1984) (elements of prescriptive easement: open, notorious, continuous and adverse use for five years)
- Vieira Enterprises, Inc. v. McCoy, 8 Cal.App.5th 1057 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (discusses occupancy/possession in context of damages for nuisance/trespass but does not convert easement into exclusive possessory interest)