Zissler v. Saville
240 Cal. Rptr. 3d 590
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- A 1994 recorded easement grants the Lupolis (and successors) a 10' x 90.46' right-of-way across Corbetts' land "providing Grantee access, ingress and egress to vehicles and pedestrians from Green Meadows Road to Grantees' real property."
- Respondent (Zissler) bought the servient parcel from the Corbetts in 1999; appellant (Saville) bought the dominant parcel in 2013 and planned major construction that would have used the easement (appellant later conceded the construction-access issue is moot on appeal).
- Historical use consisted mainly of occasional landscaping trips (about three times per month by a pickup); Lupolis’ testimony described the grant as intended for light, infrequent landscaping use, but there is no evidence they communicated a written restriction.
- Trial court found the easement ambiguous, admitted extrinsic evidence of historic/subjective intent, and limited the easement to landscape maintenance (and prohibited paving and construction-related access).
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the easement unambiguous on its face, protecting the purchaser as a bona fide purchaser without notice, and directing a new judgment allowing reasonable uses consistent with ingress/egress purposes subject to reasonableness limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the easement is ambiguous allowing extrinsic evidence to limit scope | Zissler: grant is "general" and silent on frequency, vehicle type, and purpose; historical use fixes scope | Saville: language is clear—"access, ingress and egress to vehicles and pedestrians"—no need for extrinsic evidence | Court: Not ambiguous; extrinsic evidence not admissible to limit an unambiguous express easement because language reasonably conveys full ingress/egress rights |
| Whether express right-of-way is limited to historic use or permits reasonable future uses | Zissler: scope fixed by historic, acquiesced use (Winslow rule) | Saville: general right-of-way allows all reasonable uses necessary for enjoyment and normal development | Court: Winslow inapplicable; ingress/egress grant is more specific and permits reasonable uses consistent with purpose, including normal future development, not limited to historic use |
| Whether purchaser Saville is bound by Lupolis’ claimed unwritten limitation | Zissler: past statements and use put purchaser on notice of restriction | Saville: bona fide purchaser for value without notice; relied on recorded grant language | Court: Saville is a bona fide purchaser without actual/constructive notice; therefore entitled to rely on the written grant and not bound by unwritten restrictions |
| Whether paving of the easement may be prohibited | Zissler: maintain easement unpaved; paving would enable overuse | Saville: may improve/pave as reasonably necessary to enjoy easement | Court: Paving not now shown reasonably necessary; prohibition may remain until need for paving is proven; owner may later seek paving if reasonably necessary to enjoy the easement |
Key Cases Cited
- Laux v. Freed, 53 Cal.2d 512 (Cal. 1960) (broad right-of-way grants ordinarily permit use for all reasonable purposes)
- Winslow v. City of Vallejo, 148 Cal. 723 (Cal. 1906) (where grant is general and lesser use has been acquiesced in, historic use can fix scope — court distinguishes facts)
- City of Pasadena v. California-Michigan Land & Water Co., 17 Cal.2d 576 (Cal. 1941) (unrestricted easement use limited only by reasonable necessity and consistency with grant purpose)
- Rye v. Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal Co., Inc., 222 Cal.App.4th 84 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (upheld limiting parking/storage to historic area; distinguishable where ingress/egress area and description differ)
- Melendrez v. D & I Investment, Inc., 127 Cal.App.4th 1238 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (bona fide purchaser without notice takes property free of unknown rights)
- Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 384 (Cal. 2006) (extrinsic evidence admissible only when language is reasonably susceptible to the offered meaning)