196 Cal. App. 4th 1406
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Two parcels of Evelyn Sallinen’s property were divided: plaintiffs’ 7.2-acre parcel and defendants’ 1.37-acre parcel.
- Evelyn drilled an 1980 well on plaintiffs’ parcel and used it for water; a 1969 well on defendants’ parcel existed but was marginal or abandoned.
- After Evelyn’s 2003 death, the trust and will transferred parcels; defendants moved onto their parcel and built a storage tank, diverting water from the 1980 well.
- Plaintiffs claimed water from the 1980 well remained theirs; defendants sought an implied easement to use the 1980 well water from plaintiffs’ parcel.
- Trial court held an implied easement for exclusive use of water from the 1980 well to defendants with emergency-use limits for plaintiffs; court ordered limited use and no exclusive entitlement.
- This appeal reverses the judgment, holding the easement exists but its scope must be limited to reasonable residential use and injunctive relief to curb overuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an implied water-use easement exists for defendants. | Wayne argues no express easement exists; implied easement not proven. | Alan contends implied easement exists to use water from the 1980 well on plaintiffs’ parcel. | An implied easement exists, but not as unlimited or exclusive. |
| What is the proper scope of the implied easement? | Wayne contends use limited to emergency or minimal necessary for plaintiffs’ use. | Alan seeks unfettered, exclusive use of the 1980 well water. | Implied easement must be reasonable residential use; exclusive unlimited use is not allowed. |
| Whether the Minutes documents can support the easement rights. | Wayne argues Minutes show intent to limit emergency use. | Alan relies on Minutes to justify broader use. | Minutes do not expressly grant water rights; they cannot override reasonable-use limits. |
| Whether injunctive relief and remand for declaratory relief are appropriate. | Wayne seeks injunctive relief to stop overuse and secure plaintiffs’ water rights. | Alan resists further limitations. | Injunctive relief granted to prevent overuse; case remanded for consistent declaratory/injunctive relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Camp Meeker Water System, Inc. v. Public Utilities Comm., 51 Cal.3d 845 (Cal. 1990) (implication of easements; intent and use at conveyance)
- Cushman v. Davis, 80 Cal.App.3d 731 (Cal. App. Dist. 1) (easement by implication; elements and necessity)
- Fristoe v. Drapeau, 35 Cal.2d 5 (Cal. 1950) (scope of implied easements; necessity and intent)
- Kytasty v. Godwin, 102 Cal.App.3d 762 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (intent and extent of implied easement; circumstances of conveyance)
- Mehdizadeh v. Mincer, 46 Cal.App.4th 1296 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (non-exclusive easement; burden on servient estate)
- Reichardt v. Hoffman, 52 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. App. Dist. 2) (non-exclusive use; accommodation between co-users)
- Smith v. Rock Creek Water Corp., 93 Cal.App.2d 49 (Cal. App. 1949) (unreasonable burden when using an easement; servient owner rights)
- Keeler v. Haky, 160 Cal.App.2d 471 (Cal. App. 1958) (injunctive relief for overuse of easement)