Shoen v. Zacarias
237 Cal. App. 4th 16
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Shoen and Zacarias are neighbors; a ~500 sq ft relatively flat patch between their homes is largely (≈481 sq ft) owned by Shoen but is practically accessible only from Zacarias’s property via an existing staircase.
- Zacarias, believing the patch was hers, placed portable patio furniture there after buying her home in 2003; none of the furniture was fixed to the ground.
- Shoen’s predecessor learned the patch belonged to him in 2005 but told Zacarias she could continue using it; Shoen learned of the use in 2006 and demanded removal in 2011.
- Shoen sued for trespass, nuisance, ejectment, and negligence; Zacarias defended by seeking an equitable easement and counterclaimed for a prescriptive easement.
- After an 8-day trial, the trial court granted Zacarias an exclusive 15-year equitable easement conditioned on $5,000 payment, finding (inter alia) that Zacarias’s occupation was innocent and that the balance of equities favored her (including a finding that it would cost Shoen ~$100,000 to build a staircase to the patch and that removal would cost Zacarias only $275).
- Shoen appealed; the Court of Appeal reviewed whether the equitable-easement standard (hardship to trespasser must be "greatly disproportionate" to owner) was met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an equitable easement should be granted over Shoen’s land | Shoen argued the court should not create an easement; her ownership rights outweigh Zacarias’s mere convenience | Zacarias argued her occupation was innocent and that denying continued use would impose severe hardship compared to Shoen | Reversed: equitable easement improperly awarded because Zacarias’s hardship was not greatly disproportionate to Shoen’s loss of land use |
| What quantum of hardship is required to justify an equitable easement | Implied: require a showing of hardship greatly disproportionate to owner’s hardship; protect property rights from being reassigned lightly | Zacarias argued modest costs and loss of practical use justified the easement | Court held equitable easements require a showing of hardship that is significantly (greatly) disproportionate; minor hardships (e.g., removing portable furniture) do not qualify |
| Whether the trial court properly balanced equities (including costs to build access) | Shoen contended the court overstated practical burden to her and understated the limited burden to Zacarias | Zacarias emphasized high cost to Shoen to create access (~$100,000) vs. low removal cost (~$275) and adverse effects on her view/light | Court rejected that balance: deprivation of benefit (use of patch) is not equivalent to a substantial hardship warranting reassignment of property rights; the comparative burdens did not meet the "greatly disproportionate" standard |
| Whether the appellate court should resolve Zacarias’s prescriptive-easement counterclaim now | Shoen urged dismissal on the ground exclusive use precluded prescription | Zacarias relied on factual findings to support prescriptive claim | Court declined to resolve—remanded for trial court to make factual findings on elements (open, notorious, continuous, adverse 5 years) and decide on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Tashakori v. Lakis, 196 Cal.App.4th 1003 (2011) (explains equitable easement doctrine and elements)
- Christensen v. Tucker, 114 Cal.App.2d 554 (1952) (early statement requiring hardship be greatly disproportionate)
- Linthicum v. Butterfield, 175 Cal.App.4th 259 (2009) (cautions courts to apply doctrine narrowly)
- Dolske v. Gormley, 58 Cal.2d 513 (1962) (examples of equitable easements for structural encroachments)
- Hirschfield v. Schwartz, 91 Cal.App.4th 749 (2001) (equitable easement for utilities; discussion of substantial hardship)
- Miller v. Johnston, 270 Cal.App.2d 289 (1969) (use of doctrine for access to landlocked parcels)
- Donnell v. Bisso Bros., 10 Cal.App.3d 38 (1970) (equitable easements in access contexts)
- Fairrington v. Dyke Water Co., 50 Cal.2d 198 (1958) (deprivation of benefit may fall short of substantial hardship)
- Murphy v. Burch, 46 Cal.4th 157 (2009) (distinguishes easement by necessity from equitable easement)
- Pulido v. Pereira, 234 Cal.App.4th 1246 (2015) (elements and standard for prescriptive easement)