Tashakori v. Lakis
196 Cal. App. 4th 1003
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Tashakoris retained Lot 18 (undeveloped) after selling Lot 19 with the house, leaving Lot 18 landlocked without a recorded easement.
- The only access to Lots 18 and 19 was a shared driveway across the Lakises’ land.
- In 2006 the Tashakoris sold Lot 19 but kept Lot 18, discovering it had no access easement; the Lakises disputed use of the driveway.
- The complaint (filed 2008) sought quiet title, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an equitable easement over the driveway.
- Trial court found the Tashakoris innocent of wrongdoing, held that irreparable injury would occur if access was denied, and granted an equitable easement over the Lakises’ property for Lot 18.
- Lakises appealed arguing three legal defects: (1) equitable easement may be raised only as a defense to injunction, (2) no long-standing encroachment, and (3) no damages awarded; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an equitable easement can be granted as a standalone relief, not merely as a defense to an injunction | Tashakoris used equitable easement as declaratory relief to resolve access | Lakis say equitable easement only arises as defense to encroachment injunction | Equitable easement permissible; not limited to defense |
| Whether long-standing use is required to justify an equitable easement | Tashakoris relied on prior use and belief of easement | No long-standing use requirement | No requirement for decades-long use; recent but innocent use supported by record and irreparable harm finding |
| Whether damages must be awarded to the landowners for granting an equitable easement | Damages ordinarily awarded when denying injunction | Damages not required where no diminution in value shown | No damages awarded; supported by lack of shown diminution in value and equity justification |
| Whether the complaint properly raises an equitable easement under declaratory relief and primary rights theory | Complaint seeks rights to access Lot 18 despite Lakis’ exclusive possession claims | Equitable easement not properly pleaded as declaratory relief | Complaint adequately raises a justiciable issue and declaratory relief theory supports the grant |
Key Cases Cited
- Hirshfield v. Schwartz, 91 Cal.App.4th 749 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (three-factor relative hardship test for granting equitable relief in encroachment cases)
- Linthicum v. Butterfield, 175 Cal.App.4th 259 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (equitable easement balancing of hardships; affirmative use of land rights)
- Miller v. Johnston, 270 Cal.App.2d 289 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969) (recognizes equitable easement for ingress/egress where necessary to resolve dispute)
- Christensen v. Tucker, 114 Cal.App.2d 554 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952) (equitable easement supported to protect use of land encroached upon)
- Donnell v. Bisso Brothers, 10 Cal.App.3d 38 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970) (easement by equity even with recent or mistaken encroachment; not require long-standing use)