Mehdizadeh

Mehdizadeh v. Mincer

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 627·46 Cal. App. 4th 1296·54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 284·96 Daily Journal DAR 8043·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4860
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 27, 1996B081681California3,805 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kitching, J.

Introduction

Real property law distinguishes between the different concepts of adverse possession and prescriptive easement. It is more difficult to prove adverse possession, and with good reason; a claimant relying on adverse possession seeks fee title to disputed property. A prescriptive easement, by contrast, simply allows a claimant the restricted use of property owned by another.

This appeal involves a dispute between neighbors which followed their discovery that a fence built many years earlier was not located on the legal boundary between their properties. The claimant could not prove adverse possession because he did not pay taxes on the disputed property. The trial court nonetheless granted the claimant a prescriptive easement, but that easement was so broad that it denied the record title owners virtually all use of their property.

We hold that when a claimant cannot satisfy the requirements for adverse possession, the claimant may not receive a prescriptive easement which extends so far that it becomes the equivalent of a fee interest and dispossesses the record title owners of part of their property. We further hold that under the facts of this case, the…

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.