Kapner

Kapner v. MEADOWLARK RANCH ASSN.

Good Law
11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 138·116 Cal. App. 4th 1182·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 343·2004 Daily Journal DAR 3384·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2310
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 17, 2004B163525California2,337 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

A property owner claims a prescriptive easement for improvements that he encloses on a parcel held in common with other owners. Such a claim is in the nature of adverse possession. Here we hold, among other things, that adverse possession may not masquerade as a prescriptive easement.

We affirm the trial court’s order requiring the property owner to sign an encroachment agreement or remove the encroachment.

FACTS

In 1960, Bryant E. Myers owned Meadowlark Ranch, a 437-acre parcel in Santa Ynez, California. In June of 1960, Myers recorded a declaration of protective covenants and restrictions (PC&R’s) for Meadowlark Ranches, but did not attach a legal description. The PC&R’s created a “Ranch Committee” to administrate them.

In June of 1960, Myers recorded a deed to Security Title Insurance Company (Security Title) conveying three parcels lying within Meadowlark Ranch. Parcel One describes a 60-foot wide roadway (roadway parcel). The other two parcels are a strip of land for recreational purposes and an access road from Highway 246. Security Title quitclaimed the parcels back to Myers the next day.

In August of 1960, Myers rerecorded his declaration of PC&R’s. This time…

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.