Vieira Enterprises, Inc. v. McCoy
8 Cal. App. 5th 1057
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Vieira Enterprises purchased a mobile home park in 1996; deeds described the park boundary as the centerline of a private 40-foot road (Rosedale Avenue), but a 140-foot section of the road had been fenced and gated inside the park for years.
- Recorded 1947 and 1949 deeds reserved complementary 20-foot rights-of-way for the neighboring parcels; McCoy owned the west parcel (acquired 1994) and used/claimed the easement.
- From the late 1990s through 2009 the park maintained fences, a mostly-locked gate, paved the road, parked dumpsters and later striping—uses that benefited park residents and limited general public access.
- McCoy obtained city permits and began construction (2007–2009) that required opening the gated section; Vieira resisted and in Feb–May 2010 Manuel Vieira repeatedly placed barricades across the road.
- Vieira sued to quiet title on theory that adverse possession/prescriptive use had terminated McCoy’s easement; the trial court (court trial) found Vieira failed to prove adverse possession and denied abatement of structures; a jury later awarded McCoy $20,000 for trespass; judgment for defendants affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vieira) | Defendant's Argument (McCoy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vieira extinguished recorded easement by adverse possession/prescription | Vieira: maintained fences/gate, paved road, parked structures and relied on longstanding encroachments (mobile homes) — these were open, notorious and hostile, so easement was terminated (tacking to predecessors) | McCoy: uses were permissive or mutual, predecessors didn’t assert hostile claim, encroachments did not materially impede easement — no notice of hostility | Court: Affirmed — evidence insufficient as matter of law to compel finding of adverse possession/prescription; uses were not sufficiently hostile or notice-giving. |
| Whether permanent structures on/adjacent to easement required abatement | Vieira: structures (retaining wall, utility boxes, garbage enclosure) encroached and should be abated as they threatened extinguishment of easement | McCoy: structures were placed per City requirements, did not unreasonably impede use, and Vieira failed to participate in planning; equity disfavors abatement | Court: Denied abatement — substantial evidence that structures did not unreasonably or substantially impede Vieira’s easement and injunctive relief was discretionary. |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in allowing Grabeel to file verified amended answer after unverified answer | Vieira: unverified answer should be stricken and default entered; amendment was untimely and procedurally defective | McCoy/Grabeel: pro se mistake; retroactive leave to amend cures defect; no prejudice to Vieira | Court: No abuse — trial court properly granted retroactive leave to amend; liberal amendment policy and no shown prejudice. |
| Whether jury instruction allowed recovery of annoyance/mental anguish without finding occupant status | Vieira: damages for annoyance/discomfort require claimant to be occupant/in immediate possession; instruction omitted that element so verdict is faulty | McCoy: he suffered repeated obstruction and fear while present on property; occupancy shown | Court: Instruction error, if any, harmless — record supports that McCoy functioned as occupant/possessor for purposes of annoyance damages; verdict affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilardi v. Hallam, 30 Cal.3d 317 (Cal. 1981) (adverse possession doctrine can originate in mistake; clarifies hostility requirement)
- Glatts v. Henson, 31 Cal.2d 368 (Cal. 1948) (permanent structures that obstruct an easement can extinguish or reduce it)
- Dimmick v. Dimmick, 58 Cal.2d 417 (Cal. 1962) (elements required to establish title by adverse possession)
- Popovich v. O'Neal, 219 Cal.App.2d 553 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963) (locked gate and exclusion can support prescriptive extinguishment of roadway easement)
- Sevier v. Locher, 222 Cal.App.3d 1082 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (blocking driveway with gate and refusing access can be hostile use sufficient to extinguish easement)
- Tract Dev. Servs., Inc. v. Kepler, 199 Cal.App.3d 1374 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (not all fences/gates constitute hostile use; context and permission matter)
- Clark v. Redlich, 147 Cal.App.2d 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957) (fencing/enclosure not necessarily notice of hostile claim; facts may negate hostility)
- Weller v. Chavarria, 233 Cal.App.2d 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965) (maintenance of roadway by tenant-in-possession is not necessarily adverse to cotenants; notice/hostility required)
- Kelly v. CB & I Constructors, Inc., 179 Cal.App.4th 442 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (clarifies occupant requirement for recovery of annoyance/discomfort damages in property torts)
Disposition: Judgment affirmed; defendants entitled to costs on appeal.