McLear-Gary v. Scott
235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 443
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Property dispute over a claimed easement across three adjoining Mendocino County parcels (1-A owned by McLear-Gary; 1-B owned by extended Brandon-Scott family; 1-C owned by Emrys & Freyja Scott). McLear-Gary alleges an easement along a skid trail and footpath to her parcel.
- In 2006 Emrys Scott installed and kept locked a gate across the route on parcel 1-C, prompting McLear-Gary to file a quiet-title/action to enforce easement rights in 2009.
- McLear-Gary asserted express, implied, necessity, prescriptive easements; defendants asserted adverse possession (including tax-payment element) as an affirmative defense.
- At trial the Scotts later sought to reopen evidence to introduce county tax records showing parcel 1-C taxes were timely paid but parcel 1-B had delinquent years paid by a lump-sum redemption on April 7, 2011.
- Trial court found McLear-Gary had an exclusively pedestrian prescriptive/implied easement but concluded that the Scotts extinguished it by adverse possession (finding tax requirement satisfied); judgment for Scotts entered; McLear-Gary appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to reopen evidence | Scotts' late submission was undue; court abused discretion in reopening | Scotts' counsel inadvertently omitted records; promptly moved to reopen | Trial court did not abuse discretion; reopening was reasonable and no miscarriage of justice |
| Whether section 325(b) requires "timely" annual tax payments (i.e., lump-sum redemption insufficient) to establish adverse possession | McLear-Gary: "timely" means not late; lump-sum redemption of prior delinquencies is not timely | Scotts: payment within any continuous five-year possession suffices; easement not separately assessed so parcel taxes suffice | "Timely" requires continuous annual payments during the statutory period; legislative history shows the 2010 amendment intended to bar post-hoc lump-sum redemptions; lump-sum payment failed to satisfy section 325(b) |
| Whether CC&R's created an express pedestrian/vehicular easement for McLear-Gary | McLear-Gary: CC&R language grants each "owner" a 60-foot ingress/egress easement for pedestrian and vehicular traffic; her parcel meets definition | Scotts: "parcel" in CC&R's refers to original large ranch parcels (not subsequently subdivided smaller parcels); extrinsic evidence supports that reading | Substantial evidence supports trial court's interpretation that "parcel" meant original ranch parcels; CC&R's did not grant McLear-Gary an express easement for vehicular/pedestrian use across defendants' parcels |
| Scope of prescriptive/implied easement (pedestrian v. vehicular) | McLear-Gary: historic vehicular use and development plans made vehicular use foreseeable | Scotts: vehicular use was infrequent; testimony showed only occasional vehicle use insufficient to give notice | Substantial evidence supported trial court finding scope was pedestrian only; occasional vehicle use did not establish open, notorious, continuous vehicular use |
Key Cases Cited
- Glatts v. Henson, 31 Cal.2d 368 (recognizes easement may be partially extinguished by adverse possession; discusses taxing presumption)
- Devlin v. Powell, 67 Cal.App. 165 (early authority on tax payments and adverse possession)
- Owsley v. Matson, 156 Cal. 401 (early authority allowing redemption during possession to count for tax-payment element)
- Sevier v. Locher, 222 Cal.App.3d 1082 (summarizes adverse possession elements including tax payment requirement)