Windsor Pacific LLC v. Samwood Co.
213 Cal. App. 4th 263
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Windsor seeks a prescriptive easement over Tick Canyon Road and Trash Canyon Road on Samwood and Shadow property.
- Windsor used the roads for years with Shadow's permission under a March 2006 easement agreement (ARE).
- Shadow terminated the ARE in August 2006 and provided Windsor a Termination Easement granting a permissive easement to use the roads.
- Easements were never executed due to unresolved conditions; Windsor began asserting a prescriptive right in February 2009.
- Trial court found Windsor’s use was permissive and denied relief; judgment entered for Shadow and Samwood; Shadow sought attorney fees under the ARE.
- On appeal, Windsor challenged the Samwood ruling; Shadow challenged the denial of attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prescriptive easement over Samwood? | Windsor argues ARE does not authorize use on Samwood; use may be adverse. | Samwood/Shadow contend use was permissive under termination easement and equitable estoppel blocks prescription. | Windsor not entitled; equitable estoppel bars adverse use. |
| Equitable estoppel authority to grant Samwood easement? | Windsor contends Shadow lacked authority to grant Samwood easement. | Shadow had authority via ARE and termination provisions; reliance by Windsor is reasonable. | Windsor estopped from denying Shadow's authority to grant easement over Samwood. |
| Attorney fees under ARE clause—prevailing party? | Windsor contends fees not authorized since no contract enforcement action. | Shadow asserts fees because the case involved interpreting/enforcing the ARE. | Shadow is prevailing party; fees awardable. |
| Effect of ARE termination on attorney fee clause? | Windsor argues termination negates fee obligation. | General provisions, including fee clause, survive termination unless expressly negated. | Attorneys’ fee clause survives termination; not negated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc., 35 Cal.3d 564 (Cal. 1984) (prescriptive easement elements and five-year period)
- Gilardi v. Hallam, 30 Cal.3d 317 (Cal. 1981) (definition of adverse use; prescriptive rights require hostilities)
- Aaron v. Dunham, 137 Cal.App.4th 1244 (Cal. App. 4th 2006) (adverse use not required to believe right; permission negates presumption)
- Felgenhauer v. Soni, 121 Cal.App.4th 445 (Cal. App. 4th 2004) (adverse use and owner’s rights; reliance on owner’s rights)
- Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (Cal. 1998) (contractual attorney fees; interpretation scope)
- Exxess Electronixx v. Heger Realty Corp., 64 Cal.App.4th 698 (Cal. App. 4th 1998) (whether defenses trigger fee award; action vs. defense distinction)
- Gil v. Mansano, 121 Cal.App.4th 739 (Cal. App. 4th 2004) (fee clauses and defense; dissent on breadth of 'action')