Summary by
Share this article
Joseph A. Sammartino, Esq.
Shareholder
Pejman D. Kharrazian, Esq.
Shareholder
Emily A. Long, Esq.
Senior Attorney
The Schneiders and Karla Lane own adjoining properties positioned along Trinity River in Alpine County. Karla Lane’s lot is land-locked to the west of the Schneiders’ property, meaning Lane can only access the county road on the east of the Schneider’s property by a road along the riverbank, River Road. The written easement, recorded on title to both properties, provides ingress and egress between Lane’s property and the county road. The easement while express, did not provide a metes and bounds legal description and merely referenced the “existing road and driveway.” In 2002, a flood washed away part of the River Road.
Lane filed a quiet title and declaratory action in 2003 against the Schneiders, which lasted eight (8) years. In 2011, the trial court held the easement burdened the entirety of the Schneiders’ lot (not just the “existing road and driveway”) and designated a new easement route which was referred to as the 2011 route.
In 2018, another flood eroded the 2011 route, and so a new permissive route was needed. In 2019, the Schneiders filed a quiet title and declaratory action, alleging Lane failed to maintain the 2011 route and protect it from erosion, and disputing Lane’s right to relocate the easement. Lane filed a cross-complaint for declaratory relief, seeking cooperation from the Schneiders to designate an alternate easement route. Trial was held on Lane’s cross-complaint to determine the easement’s location and maintenance responsibilities. The trial court determined the location of the new easement and held that Lane was responsible for maintaining the easement, which included stabilizing the riverbank in an area separate from the easement. All parties appealed.
The appellate court disagreed that Lane was responsible to stabilize the riverbank. The court analyzed Civil Code section 845 and the obligation of an easement owner to “maintain it in repair.” The court found the ordinary meaning of “repair” is to keep up and preserve an easement in good condition, and not to create new structures or make major capital improvement, particularly when the proposed riverbank improvements were 30 to 50 feet away from the easement route.
TAKEAWAY: The owner of the dominant tenement of an easement is responsible for the costs of maintaining and repairing the easement, but not for major improvements or taking separate protective measures that go beyond general upkeep.