The use of exclusive and non exclusive property rights can be used in certain situations.
Unless express terms of instrument create it or the parties intend to make it exclusive, an easement is not exclusive.There is a case example.A competing water service distributor granted the water company permission to install water mains and service connections in five-foot wide areas.The grant did not imply that the easement was exclusive.The owner of the easement argued that it had the right to occupy it because it was defined by the grant.The grant's language and evidence did not make the easement exclusive.The servient owner could transfer its retained rights in the easement to the competing water service distributor.Without clear intent, an intent to convey an exclusive easement is not imputed to the owner.
Lorman has over 34 years of professional training experience.
A case example.The grant gave the grantee the full and free right for all purposes connected with the use of said grantee's land, to pass and repass along, over and upon said private road or alleyway.The trial court found that the exclusive use by the easement owner was not a violation of the owner's rights.The grant deed's language was clear and unambiguous and does not require or authorize the court to consider other evidence.The use of the terms "full and free" and "all purposes" was not intended to be exclusive to the grantee, but only the right to pass and repass for all purposes connected with the use.
The court looks at the evidence from the past.There are surrounding circumstances.The relationship between parties and their properties.The nature and purpose of the easement.The ambiguity was interpreted in favor of the grantee.It was construed against the drafter of the easement.In favor of grantor, ambiguity in reservation is considered.
The owner of the easement has the right to use it as long as it doesn't interfere with or impede the owner's right of enjoyment.
The enjoyment by the second grantee is subject to the superior rights of the first grantee and cannot be interfered with.
A case example.A competing water service distributor granted the water company permission to install water mains and service connections in five-foot wide easement previously granted to the original owner.The original owner argued that the owner of the land did not have the power to grant the same type of easement.The water company's installation substantially interfered with the present partial occupation of the easement and its possible future use for additional pipes and connections, as the original easement owner argued it had a right to occupy the five-foot strip completely if the necessity arose.The court found it wasn't exclusive.The owner of the land retains the right to use it for himself and the power to transfer it to a third party.The original owner of the easement has the right to use it, but until an irreconcilable conflict arises, the parties should enjoy the interest as long as possible.
It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.Fee estate can be distinguished from exclusive easement by the fact that the owner's exclusive use does not encompass the entire area.Significant restriction on the use of the easement owner will distinguish exclusive easement from fee interest.
There is a case example.By grant deed, the grantor granted to the grantee an appurtenant easement "for parking and garage purposes" over a defined area of thegrantor's land that encompassed more than 6,100 square feet.The successor of the grantee wanted to build a two car garage on the land.The trial court ruled that the grant deed gave the grantee the right to build a garage and exclusive use of the garage.The award of exclusive control over the garage, which will occupy only a small portion of the easement, is intended to protect the grantee's restricted rights and does not rise to fee ownership.
There is a case example.An incorrect grant deed and survey led the water company to believe that part of its property was built on.The company discovered the mistake and filed a quiet title action.The trial court granted the water company an exclusive right of way over a portion of the properties where the reservoir was located.The opposing party argued that an exclusive easement is akin to a fee estate.The easement granted by the trial court was not the same as a fee interest because it restricted the company's use of the properties.
It was forbidden from increasing the burden placed on the estates.
There is a case example.New owner in luxury residential development sued to prohibit adjoining neighbor from passing horses across and from any use of the adjoining property for benefit of his property.The language of the CC&Rs explicitly stated that the dominant tenement's use "shall be exclusive" and that there was no reservation language for the servient tenement.The facts that the easement owner would be expected to share it with the adjoining neighbor were found by the appellate court.The court ruled that the owner of the dominant tenement had an exclusive right of use in the area.The court ruled that the easement was not a fee estate because the dominant owner only used it for access, ingress and egress.
A case example.Grantor granted permanent and exclusive rights for electrical transmission lines.Grantor had the right to use the estate for various purposes.After the area of the property had changed from agricultural to industrial and commercial use, the owner began using the easement area as an employee parking lot.The owner of the easement wanted to stop that use.All other uses of the property other than for electrical transmission lines are reserved to the owner.The owner could use the area as a parking lot.The court only looked at the language of the grant.The words of reservation were not enough.
The Map Act regulates the subdivision of land and requires that a map be prepared and approved by the local agency.
There is a purpose.To regulate and control design and improvement of subdivisions, providing proper consideration to its relation to adjoining areas, and to require the subdivider to provide for and install any necessary streets, drainage, utilities and other services.There is a definition of subDIVISION.The "division, by any subdivider, of any unit or units of improved or unimproved land, or portion of it, shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as aunit or contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future,"EASEMENT UNFORCEABLE if it causes a vision problem.If an exclusive easement is found to be a subdivision under the Map Act, it will be null and void.
A case example.In a case of first impression reported May 22, 2007, the Second District examined a grant deed that conveyed to the grantee an appurtenant easement "for parking and garage purposes" over a defined area of the grantor's land that encompassed more than 6,100 square feet.The successor of the grantee wanted to build a two-car garage on the land.The trial court ruled that the grant deed gave the grantee the right to build a garage and exclusive use of the garage.
The trial court construed the easement to be a subdivision under the Map Act, and the grantor did not prepare a map or get agency approval, which led to the appeal.The issue is not the division of property into distinguishable possessory estates or interests, nor is it the sale of land or a lease, but the right to use a portion of the property in a restricted manner.The easement doesn't meet the definition of a subdivision and therefore does not need to comply with the Map Act.The case dealt with a transfer of ownership interest in the land.Four opinions of the Attorney General were distinguished by the court because they dealt with a scheme of joint or collective ownership.
There is a case example.The grantors reserved the rear portion of the conveyed lot for use until they sold the remaining lot or died, subject to a written agreement.The city alleges that the agreement was to subdivide the property in violation of the Map Act.The agreement did not constitute a subdivision because it was only the right to use a portion of the lot and was not a sale of land, as a lease is an estate in land created for a definite period of time.
EASEMENT UNFORCEABLE if a lot line is adjusted.If an illegal lot line adjustment is found, an exclusive easement may be held unenforceable.There is a lot line adjusting.A lot line adjustment is when land is taken from one parcel and added to another.If a lot line is adjusted between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, it is not subject to Map Act conditions as long as approval of the appropriate local agency is obtained.
It is possible to get 888-405-7720 888-405-7720If the exclusive use is not restricted in scope in the language of the easement, a court may find that fee ownership has transferred between the properties and a lot line adjustment has occurred.The lot line adjustment approval was not obtained from the appropriate local agency.
There is a practice of drafting consideration.The rights of the grantee in an exclusive easement must be carefully drafted to restrict their rights to the grantor.
To make sure the court doesn't deem the exclusive easement to be a transfer of fee ownership, be sure to include access by the grantor, such as a gate.
The introduction.Boundary line disputes are usually caused by the construction of a fence or wall, the planting of trees or a hedge on the other side of the boundary line, or the building or stairway of another property.The remedies of the adjoining property's owner might include a quiet title action, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and/or an order for possession.
Laches, statute of limitations, comparative fault, fraud, estoppel and/or consent are some of the defenses of an encroaching landowner.In a quiet title action, the theories of recovery might include the agreed boundary doctrine, adverse possession, equitable easement, and/or an easement by agreement.
The agreed-upon doctor's prescription.In a boundary dispute, a landowner might try to show that an agreement had been reached between him and the adjoining property's owner as to the location of the boundary line.The true line becomes legal if the agreed upon line is successful.
There is uncertainty about the true boundary line.The adjoining property owners have an implied agreement to fix the location of the line.There is an acceptance and acquiescence in the boundary line for the period of the statute of limitations, or for a lesser period under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of position.When the true location of the boundary line is uncertain or in doubt, the adjoining property owners can establish a boundary by agreement, which may be implied from the surrounding facts and circumstances.The agreed boundary doctrine won't apply where lots have been professionally surveyed and boundary markers are in the ground.It would be difficult to prove that the true location of the boundary line was uncertain or that there was an implied agreement between the parties.The agreed boundary doctrine will not apply if one or both of the adjoining land owners know that the agreed line is not the true line.The parties can't establish a boundary other than the true one because they know that the line was not fixed.The statute of frauds states that an attempt to transfer land without a conveyance is a violation.The elements must be proved.Once established, the agreed boundary line becomes the true line that is legally enforceable between the parties, regardless of the location shown in a subsequent survey.The policy behind this doctrine is to provide stability to agreements that the parties themselves have undertaken in good faith in an effort to settle a controversy.There is a case example.A man built a concrete bathhouse and wall on a piece of land that he thought was his own.He sold one of the lots to his new neighbor.The wall and bathhouse were found on the neighbor's property by the contractor.The neighbor took no action after the discussion.The wall was further improved to protect the swimming pool.The neighbor did not pay for the improvements.The owner continued to pay taxes on the wall.The properties were re-assessed two years after the discrepancy was discovered.The neighbor said "no" when asked if she wanted to pay taxes on the wall.The relationship between the parties deteriorated over the next year due to a dispute over a hole in the wall that was supposed to be used for a gas line.The neighbor threatened to tear down the wall after learning that the owner of the land had retained an attorney to help resolve the dispute.The neighbor demolished the wall without the owner's permission.The landowner brought an action to quiet title in the 3 1/2 foot wide strip of land to recover damages from the destruction of the wall.To uphold the trial court's judgment in favor of the landowner, sufficient evidence was presented under the agreed boundary doctrine.A man bought a property with a row of trees and a wire fence that he thought was the southern boundary of his property.A barn that was built up against the hedge was torn down by the owner of the land who put in a new fence.His neighbor did not object.The survey showed that the boundary line was five feet north of the hedge.Boundary stakes were found along the true line.The owner of the land brought an action to quiet title in order to stop the neighbor from cutting down the trees.The agreed boundary doctrine does not apply.The neighbor was not able to prove that he was ever uncertain about the location of the boundary line.The neighbor's acquiescence in allowing the owner of the land to take over the strip of land might work against them in an adverse claim.If the true boundary line is uncertain or believed to be uncertain, an agreement fixing it is not effective.
There was aVERSE POSSESSION.The payment of property taxes on the disputed land is the most difficult element to prove in an adverse possession claim.If there is an agreement between the parties regarding an uncertain boundary, the payment of the taxes on the property described in the deed may be sufficient, because the agreed upon line becomes the true line called for by the respective legal descriptions.In such an instance, the title was likely established under the agreed boundary doctrine.If there is no agreement as to an uncertain boundary line, the payment of taxes in accordance with the deed description won't count for adverse possession.
A case example.The northern boundary line of the property was eighteen inches over the true line when the fence and improvements were constructed.The four corners of the lot were pointed out to the landowner by the predecessor-in-interest of his neighbor.There was a discrepancy between the fence line and the property line in the deed.A quiet title action began.The neighbor argued that the adverse possession claim failed because the owner failed to pay taxes on the eighteen inch wide strip of land.The true line was attached to the deeds of both parties so that the owner of the property could claim it.A payment of taxes is a payment on the land in the possession of the parties, according to the court.The natural inference is that the value of the land and improvements is based on the parties' visible possession.
PreSCRIPTIVE EASEMENT.An adverse possession claim might seem to have a better chance of succeeding in the boundary line dispute context, because the person doesn't need to prove he paid taxes on the land.The claim was successful in the case of the Otay Water District v. Beckwith20.According to a line of cases, the courts will not award exclusive prescriptive easements, which would be the equivalent of fee ownership, without a claimant satisfying the elements of adverse possession.
There is a case example.A 1,600 square foot area that was located on his neighbor's land was fenced in and used as a backyard.The neighbor sought a declaration of his rights in the land and the owner cross-complained to quiet title to a piece of land.The trial court granted the land owner an exclusive right of way over the fenced-in portion of the neighbor's land.All of the elements of adverse possession must be proved in order to succeed, including the payment of property taxes.The court stated that there is no application to a simple residential boundary dispute.The court distinguished Otav Water District by limiting it to its peculiar facts and the court's stated policy reasons of preventing contamination of the water supply and for other health and safety purposes.In the water.
The exclusive easement did not amount to a fee simple because the owner could take back his property if he deviated from the historical use.
There is a case example.The predecessor-in-interest built a fence between his property and the adjacent lot.A new fence was installed 10 feet down the slope from the original fence after a survey was performed.The property between the two fences had trees, shrubs and a sprinkler system that was connected to the neighbor's water supply.The neighbor's use to landscaping and recreational purposes was limited and his right to build improvements in the area was restricted by the trial court.The owner of the land was ordered to remove the new fence because of their air, light and privacy rights.The trial court granted a prescriptive easement that effectively stripped the owner of most of his rights in residential property.The fence reduces the size and shape of the land, which could cause problems with the building codes.The creation of such an easement would dispossess a non consenting land owner.
There is a case example.A landowner built a woodshed and installed trees, planter boxes and an irrigation system on her property next to a vacant lot.The new neighbor brought an action to quiet title to the disputed land after buying the vacant lot.The owner of the land wanted to establish title by adverse possession.The trial court ordered the landowner to remove the woodshed and landscaping after rejecting their adverse possession claims.Since it would effectively exclude the neighbor from any use of that portion of their property on which the woodshed stands, the landowner can't grant an easement.The neighbor can't use that part of their land because of the landscaping.The neighbor would not be able to install a driveway or use the land to run utility lines as they had planned, nor would they be allowed to build a fence.In a garden-variety residential encroachment, an exclusive prescriptive easement cannot be claimed.In Blackmore v. Powell, the exclusive easement was granted by express grant, not by prescription.The equitable easement line of cases should be distinguished from these cases.
There are equitable easings.A court can refuse to grant an injunction against an encroachment if it can show an interest in the owner's land.The "Relative Hardship Doctrine" is what it is called.A court can deny removal of an encroachment if it is innocently made and does not irreparably harm the person who is trying to remove it.
The encroachment must not be willful or negligent.If the public's rights would be harmed, the court should grant the injunction.The hardship to the defendants must be more than the hardship caused by the encroachment.The element must be proven in the evidence.The court needs to identify the competing equities for each party.It must balance the hardship to either party by granting or denying the injunction.
There is a case example.Two neighbors assumed a chain link fence marked their property line for over twenty years.A landowner built waterfalls, a koi pond, stone deck, putting green and sand trap, and built a strong wall.The neighbor created a garden with exotic plants and trees.A survey revealed that a number of improvements were installed on the neighbor's property, including a portion of the sand trap, extensive underground water and electrical lines, and several motors that ran the waterfalls and the swimming pool recirculation.The neighbor filed a lawsuit.The trial court applied the relative hardship doctrine and ruled in favor of the owner.The trial court's balancing of the equities was affirmed by the appellate court.The cost and hassle of removing the encroachments would cause a lot of hardship to the owner.The encroachments would cause little hardship to the neighbor.The trial court granted an equitable easement that limited the rights of the land owner.If he moved from his residence or sold his property, his rights would be terminated.The damages were ordered to be equal to the fair market value of the property.The holdings of the three people did not apply to this case.The courts wanted to protect the adverse possession laws.There was no mention of the court's power in equity in those cases.
EQUITABLE EASEMENTS are prescriptive.In the relative hardship analysis, the encroaching party's intent is paramount: it cannot be willful, deliberate or even seriously negligent.An adverse possession claim requires intent to dispossess the owner of the disputed property if the encroacher is acting negligently or deliberately.Abuse of discretion is the standard of review for an equitable easement case.
If one of thedjoining property owners chooses to keep his land unfenced, he must return the money he spent to maintain the boundaries and monuments.
Civil Code Section 841 may be modified by agreement.The agreement may allow one party to enter the other's land to maintain or repair the improvements located on the boundary line.Boundary trees must not be damaged to the disadvantage of the other party.
If the roots of the tree grow into the land of another, they belong to the owner of that land.The cost of restoring the property to its pre-injury condition could be measured.If one party was wrongly injured or removed trees from another's property, the payment of treble damages may be available.
There is a provision in theENCE FENCE LAW.It is considered a private nuisance if a property owner builds or maintains a fence that is over 10 feet in height for the purpose of annoying his neighbor.
A row of trees planted on or near the boundary line can be included in a structure.
There is a case example.After learning that his neighbor planned to build a two-story log home close to the property line, a landowner planted a row of evergreen trees, including hybrid cypresses, to serve as screening barriers and windbreaks.The landlord was sued by the neighbor under several theories, including the spite fence statute.The neighbor claimed that the trees would block their view if they were allowed to grow.There is a town called Shasta.The trial court ruled that trees are neither built nor constructed but rather they grow, and given that the trees in question were not trimmed but growing in their natural state, they could not be considered a fence or structure.A fence or other structure in the nature of a fence can be a row of trees planted on or near the boundary line between adjoining properties.A row of trees are arranged in a pattern of organization.
In reviewing the statute's purpose, the court found that a structure does not need to prevent intrusion to be a fence, but only serve to separate or mark the boundary between adjoining owners.The court ruled that the main purpose of a fence is not the sole purpose for building or maintaining it, but rather the "dominant" purpose.
There are seven ethic agreements.To resolve or avoid a boundary line dispute, the parties can enter into an encroachment agreement, which would allow one party to use a portion of the other's property, whether it be for access purposes or to permit the encroachment of improvements.
An encroachment agreement can be in the form of a license, a covenant, or a party wall agreement.
Access agreement for pedestrian and vehicle entrance and exit; parking of vehicles; maintenance of vegetation or structures; grading, installation, maintenance and landscaping of a slope; and/or construction, use and repair of utility lines, or the spreading field are examples.