Coppinger

Coppinger v. Rawlins

Bad Law
191 Cal. Rptr. 3d 414·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 700·239 Cal. App. 4th 608
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 14, 2015E060664California3,427 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ramirez, J.

Prior owners subdivided their land into two parcels, dedicating narrow lots “A,” “B,” and “C” (Lots A, B, and C) to defendant County of Riverside (County) for public road and utility purposes. The County accepted the dedication in 1980, with the proviso that Lots B and C would not immediately become part of the county-maintained road system. In 1984, plaintiffs Connie and Joseph Coppinger, Jr., purchased one parcel. Defendants Rogelio and Maria Rawlins purchased the other parcel, and used Lot C for ingress and egress. Plaintiffs erected a gate to prevent the Rawlinses from using Lot C, and eventually filed a lawsuit against the Rawlinses and the County for quiet title, trespass, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The Rawlinses and the County demurred to the third amended complaint, and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, plaintiffs argue that (1) the dedication of the public right of way constituted a “taking” from the prior owners under the federal Bill of Rights, and (2) the County’s acceptance of the dedicated lots did not constitute an unconditional acceptance within the meaning of the Subdivision Map…

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.