Kellogg

Kellogg v. Garcia

Good Law
102 Cal. App. 4th 796·125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 817·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4738·2002 Daily Journal DAR 11551·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10146
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 2, 2002C037628California5,421 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kolkey, J.

Plaintiffs Theodore and Sylvia Kellogg (the Kelloggs) were gifted a landlocked parcel, which requires that they use a private road that crosses their neighbors’ properties in order to gain access to the property. Defendants Ronald and Judith Garcia (the Garcias) deny that the Kelloggs have a right to use the private road that traverses their property for purposes of such access. The Kelloggs sued to quiet title, claiming an implied or express easement over the Garcias’ and their other neighbors’ properties. Following trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the Garcias.

Under the law, “[a]n easement by way of necessity arises . . . when it is established that (1) there is a strict necessity for the right-of-way, as when the claimant’s property is landlocked and (2) the dominant and servient tenements were under the same ownership at the time of the conveyance giving rise to the necessity.” (Moores v. Walsh (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1046, 1049 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 389 ] (Moores).)

Relying on Bully Hill Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bruson (1906) 4 Cal.App. 180 [ 87 P. 237 ] (Bully Hill), the trial court ruled in this case that an easement by way of necessity cannot arise where…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.