McBride v. Smith
227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 390
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Properties at 1664 (McBride), 1670 (Smiths), and 1660 Spring share adjacent boundaries and two parallel recorded easements: a 12-foot Secondary Access Easement (recorded 1993) described as "secondary/emergency ingress and egress," and a Driveway Easement (recorded 2004) over part of 1660 providing vehicular access.
- McBride alleges the Driveway and Secondary Access functioned as a single gravel alley providing primary access to 1664; she further alleges daily, open use of the Secondary Access as primary access for at least five years.
- The Smiths installed a bolted pole with chain, wood dividers, buried footings and other fixtures in/along the Secondary Access Easement; McBride claims these encroachments obstruct access and a hammer-head fire turnaround.
- McBride sued for trespass, forcible detainer/entry, nuisance, prescriptive easement, and several quiet-title/equitable easement theories; multiple amended complaints followed after demurrers.
- The trial court sustained demurrers without leave to amend to various claims (notably trespass, nuisance, and prescriptive easement), awarded the Smiths attorney fees, and entered judgment. On appeal the court reversed as to nuisance and prescriptive easement but affirmed dismissal of trespass and other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trespass | McBride: erecting pole/chain/boards on the easement unlawfully interfered with her use and therefore supports trespass damages. | Smiths: McBride has only a nonpossessory easement (no exclusive possession); land is owned by Smiths so entry was not an unauthorized invasion of possessory rights. | Demurrer sustained. Easement holder lacks exclusive possessory right; trespass requires unauthorized entry on land of which plaintiff has exclusive possession. |
| Nuisance | McBride: encroachments unreasonably obstructed free use and enjoyment of her property and safety (fire turnaround). | Smiths: exhibits and prior pleadings show encroachments are on servient land edge and did not prevent access; Secondary Access is limited (secondary/emergency) so McBride cannot claim free use beyond grant. | Demurrer improperly sustained. Allegations that fixtures obstructed access and enjoyment were sufficient to raise triable issue of substantial, unreasonable interference with McBride’s use of her property. Claim should proceed. |
| Prescriptive Easement | McBride: daily, open, notorious use of Secondary Access as primary access for ≥5 years created prescriptive rights expanding the recorded grant. | Smiths: recorded grant authorized use (so use was permissive), maps/pleadings contradict alleged adverse use; one cannot acquire prescriptive rights when using by permission. | Demurrer improperly sustained. Allegations of daily, primary use that exceeded the 1993 limited grant sufficiently plead adverse use for five years to state a prescriptive-easement claim. |
| Attorney Fees Order | McBride: trial court’s award improper given dismissal of some claims. | Smiths: fees clause in recorded grant entitles them to fees. | Not addressed on appeal because reversal of other claims rendered fee order unnecessary to decide here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Interlake Steel Co., 32 Cal.3d 229 (Cal. 1982) (trespass defined as 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)
- Vieira Enterprises, Inc. v. McCoy, 8 Cal.App.5th 1057 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (discusses nuisance/trespass damages for easement holders and occupancy/possession concepts)
- Scruby v. Vintage Grapevine, Inc., 37 Cal.App.4th 697 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (easement confers a restricted, definable use; servient owner retains incidents of ownership not inconsistent with easement)
- Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc., 35 Cal.3d 564 (Cal. 1984) (elements for prescriptive easement: open, notorious, continuous, adverse use for five years)
- Windsor Pacific LLC v. Samwood Co., Inc., 213 Cal.App.4th 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (adverse use requires lack of express or implied recognition of owner’s rights; permissive use defeats prescriptive claim)
- Kapner v. Meadowlark Ranch Assn., 116 Cal.App.4th 1182 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (distinguishing possession-based trespass from nonpossessory rights shared among co-owners)