Connolly

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves the issue of whether a prescriptive easement was acquired by plaintiffs and appellants Connolly (the Connollys) across adjacent real property owned by defendants and respondents Trabue (the Trabues) in a rural portion of southern Humboldt County. After a bench trial lasting approximately two weeks, the trial court ruled that, even if such an easement had been acquired by the Connollys, their claim to the right to use such was barred by the doctrine of laches because they had delayed in asserting their claimed prescriptive easement in a timely manner. In their appeal, the Connollys claim the trial court erred in so ruling, because laches cannot and does not apply in a factual situation such as this or in legal, as distinguished from equitable, actions.

We agree that the doctrine of laches is inapplicable in an action involving a claim for prescriptive title to an easement and hence reverse the judgment rendered in favor of the Trabues.

The Trabues, appearing in propria persona as they did in the trial court, cross-appeal from the trial court’s denial of their claims for costs of suit, *1157 attorney fees, and damages for trespass,…