Zissler

*634 Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder but legal ambiguity is not. As we shall explain, there is no objective legal ambiguity in the easement here at issue.

Patrick J. Saville, as Trustee, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of respondent James F. Zissler, as Trustee. These Montecito neighbors have a dispute over an easement. The trial court "interpreted" an ingress-egress easement burdening respondent's property for the benefit of appellant's property. The trial court ruled that the easement was ambiguous, decided the case based upon extrinsic evidence *594 of historic use, and added language limiting the easement.

We reverse and remand the matter with directions to prepare a new judgment consistent with the views expressed in this opinion. Our analysis is guided by these general principles: 1. A broad grant of a right-of-way easement "will ordinarily be construed as creating a general right of way capable of use ... for all reasonable purposes." ( Laux v. Freed (1960) 53 Cal.2d 512 , 525, 2 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 348 P.2d 873 ( Laux ); see post , pp. 599-600.) 2. "[A] bona fide purchaser for value who acquires his interest in real property without notice of another's…