What Issues Concern Easements Between Adjoining Properties in California?

In the recent decision of Batta v. Hunt, the judgment of the Superior Court was reversed in the case that involved a dispute over two adjacent parcels of property each containing a multi-unit apartment complex with on-site parking for their residents.

The parties sought to determine their rights regarding a purported easement to use a disputed area on one parcel for additional space for tenant parking and trash dumpsters.

After a bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, appellants, and cross-respondents Eli and Maha Batta (the Battas), finding they had established easement rights for additional parking and the dumpsters in the disputed area on the adjacent parcel, which was owned by defendant, respondent, and cross-appellant Therese Hunt.

The trial court found the Battas established their easement rights under multiple theories, including by oral grant, by prescription, and by implication.

While the trial court granted the parking and trash dumpster easement in favor of the Battas, it ordered that the easement would expire upon a bona fide sale of either property by the Battas or Hunt.

Both parties appealed, and Hunt argued the trial court erred in granting the easement rights on various procedural and evidentiary grounds.

The Battas argued the trial court abused its discretion in ruling the easement would expire upon a bona fide sale of either property.

The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Hunt owned two adjacent properties located at 6870 Woodley Avenue (the Hunt Property) and 6866 Woodley Avenue (the Batta Property). The Hunt Property contains a four-unit apartment building and a separate carport to the west of the building.

The Batta Property sits directly south of the Hunt Property and contains a nine-unit apartment building, which includes an overhang in the back of the building where tenants can park. The Batta Property also contains two additional parking spaces in the front of the building. A driveway runs east to west between the two apartment buildings.

The Battas purchased the Batta Property from Hunt in 1994.

In 2019, the Battas sought a parking covenant from Hunt to prove to the City of Los Angeles that the Batta Property had sufficient available parking spaces.

When Hunt refused to sign the covenant, the Battas brought this action, seeking an easement for parking as well as space to place their dumpsters, which had also been placed on the Hunt Property since the time of purchase.

The Battas’ original complaint alleged causes of action for (1) quiet title to an easement by grant, (2) quiet title to an easement by prescription, (3) quiet title to an irrevocable license, and (4) breach of contract.

They sought a determination as to whether the Batta Property tenants could use four parking spaces on the Hunt Property and whether the Battas could place a garbage dumpster on the Hunt Property adjacent to the four parking spaces.

The Battas alleged their tenants had parked in the same locations on the Hunt Property since their purchase in 1994, and the dumpster had always been placed in the same location. The Battas alleged the disputed area was subject to an easement granted by Hunt.

The Battas further alleged a description of the easement was contained in a real estate transfer disclosure statement (TDS) completed by Hunt after the Battas purchased the Batta Property.

The Battas alleged they would not have purchased the property without an easement.

After issuing a series of tentative and final statements of decision, the trial court ruled in favor of the Battas.

The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that before the Battas purchased the Batta Property, Hunt owned the two adjacent parcels. There was a four-unit apartment building on the Hunt Property and a nine-unit on the Battas Property.

When Hunt owned both properties, she subdivided one of the units in the Batta Property, adding a nonpermitted ninth unit.

Between 1977 and 1994, while Hunt owned both properties, the tenants for the Batta Property parked their cars in three parking spaces behind the carport of the Hunt Property, and the Batta Property’s trash and recycling dumpsters were stored near the back of the Hunt Property’s carport.

The Battas purchased the Batta Property from Hunt in 1994. Before the Battas purchased the property, all of the tenants in both apartment buildings parked wherever it was most convenient for them. After the Battas purchased the property, their tenants continued to park on both the Hunt Property and the Batta Property.

Before selling the Batta Property, Hunt told the Battas she believed there was an easement on the Hunt Property, which gave the Batta Property rights to park and place a trash dumpster on the Hunt Property. Although the purchase agreement did not mention an easement, Hunt described an easement in the TDS.

The TDS identified an easement on the Hunt Property for parking for two units of the Batta Property and space for the dumpster. Hunt also verbally told the Battas there was an easement for parking and the dumpster.

Both Hunt and the Battas expected that the tenants in two of the units on the Batta Property would continue to use the three parking spaces behind the Hunt Property carport pursuant to the easement, and the parties operated under this assumption from the time of purchase until 2019.

After the sale, Hunt never told the Battas or their tenants that they could or could not continue to park on the Hunt Property. Hunt never really knew exactly where the property line was along the driveway between the two properties.

The Battas paved the area behind the Hunt Property carport and also the driveway. Hunt knew about the paving but took no action to prevent it, remove it, or check the property line. The paved driveway covers areas on both proprieties; however, the vast majority sits on the Batta Property.

The Batta Property tenants used the driveway between the two apartment buildings to access the parking. The driveway was partially on the Hunt Property. The tenants needed this driveway to access the parking spaces, three of which were on the Hunt Property while the remainder were on the Batta Property.

While the Batta Property had some additional on-site parking, the spaces were not realistically usable as some appeared to be too narrow or difficult to access without damaging the cars or supporting beams. Further, some of these additional spaces on the Batta Property had been used for almost 30 years as a common area for the tenants.

Both sides expected that after the Battas purchased the property, the dumpster would continue to be stored against the back wall of the Hunt Property carport, which is located at the end of the parties’ shared driveway.

The parties never recorded an easement. Instead, the parties continued to operate as if there was an easement from the time the Battas bought the Batta property in 1994 until 2019.

In support of its finding that the Battas had established an easement by prescription, the trial court found the Battas did not have permission to the use the disputed area on the Hunt Property. It found Hunt’s testimony that she gave the Battas permission to use the land was not credible.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Battas.

It found there was an easement by implication, by oral grant and by prescription in favor of the Batta Property for three parking spaces on the Hunt Property and space for a trash and recycling dumpsters.

It further found a nonexclusive driveway easement by implication, oral grant, and by prescription between the Batta Property and the Hunt Property to the extent the driveway overlaps the two properties in order for the Battas’ tenants to access the parking spaces and dumpsters.

The trial court enjoined the Hunt Property from using the easement in a manner inconsistent with its findings. The trial court further ordered that the easement did not run with the title of either property and that the easement would expire in the event of a good faith bona fide sale by the parties.

The trial court also ordered a nonexclusive easement by implication, by oral grant, and by prescription to the extent that the driveway was necessary access to the Batta Property.

The trial court ordered this easement to run with title to both properties.

An easement is an interest in the land of another, which entitles the owner of the easement to a limited use or enjoyment of the other’s land.

An easement creates a nonpossessory right to enter and use land in another’s possession and obligates the possessor not to interfere with the uses authorized by the easement.

Relevant here, easements may be created by an express grant, an implied grant, or by prescription.

An express grant of an easement may be created by an executed oral agreement.

Courts will create an easement by executed oral agreement where a seller orally agrees that the buyer will have an easement over the seller’s property, but fails to convey it expressly by the deed and where the buyer uses and improves the easement and performs the contract. 

An implied easement will be found where the following conditions exist: (1) the owner of property conveys or transfers a portion of that property to another; (2) the owner’s prior existing use of the property was of a nature that the parties must have intended or believed that the use would continue; meaning that the existing use must either have been known to the grantor and the grantee, or have been so obviously and apparently permanent that the parties should have known of the use; and (3) the easement is reasonably necessary to the use and benefit of the quasi-dominant tenement.

A prescriptive easement will be found where the party seeking the easement proves use of the property for the statutory period of five years and where the use has been (1) open and notorious; (2) continuous and uninterrupted; (3) hostile to the true owner; and (4) under claim of right.

In other words, an easement acquired by prescription is one acquired by adverse use for a certain period.

Adverse use’ means that the claimant’s use of the property was made without the explicit or implicit permission of the landowner.

This requirement ensures that a prescriptive easement can arise only if the owner had an opportunity to protect his or her rights by taking legal action to prevent the wrongful use, yet failed to do so.

Here, the evidence the trial court relied on to rule in favor of the Battas on their claims for easements by implication and oral grant establish that the Battas’ use of the Hunt Property was not adverse.

The trial court found that the Hunt’s statements to the Battas prior to the purchase and subsequently the TDS constituted an oral grant of an easement. It also found that the parties expected that the tenants would continue to park their cars on the Hunt Property as if there was an easement at the time of purchase.

In other words, the trial court’s findings reflect that the Battas’ use of the Hunt Property was permissive.

On the other hand, in finding that the Battas established a prescriptive easement over Hunt’s Property, it concluded that Hunt did not give permission for the Battas to use her property.

In sum, the trial court found there was an express or implied agreement but no permission.

These findings are inherently conflicting, irreconcilable, and, as explained in more detail below, require reversal of the judgment.

The Battas seem to concede that the trial court made inconsistent findings. However, the Battas argue we should modify the judgment and affirm since it is apparent the trial court intended to grant easement rights over the Hunt Property and the Battas established those rights either by implication or oral grant.

The appellate court decided modification and affirmance would be inappropriate here.

Here, the Battas argue they sufficiently established their rights to an easement by implication and oral grant; therefore, we should affirm the judgment as modified because the judgment is correct on at least one of these theories.

In examining these remaining theories, the appellate court found that neither is sufficient to affirm the judgment.

The Battas argued the evidence was sufficient to support an easement by oral grant, and the appellate court disagreed.

While easements must generally be conveyed in writing, an executed oral agreement will convey title to an easement.

Thus, although an easement is an interest in real property and generally must be agreed to in writing, an oral agreement to grant an easement will be enforced where the grantee improves the easement and otherwise performs under the terms of the agreement.

Here, the evidence relied on by the trial court to find an easement by oral grant was Hunt’s statements during the sales process and prior to purchase that there was an easement, and Hunt’s statement in the TDS where she described an easement for parking and trash bins. Hunt argues this evidence was insufficient to create an oral grant because Hunt’s statements during the sales process and before the sale could not modify the purchase agreement under the parol evidence rule, and the TDS was insufficient to constitute a separate agreement to grant an easement.

The appellate court agreed with Hunt.

When the parties to a written contract have agreed to it as an "integration"—a complete and final embodiment of the terms of an agreement—parol evidence cannot be used to add to or vary its terms.

Here, the parties do not dispute that the purchase agreement contained an integration clause. Nor do they dispute that the purchase agreement makes no mention of an easement. Further, the Battas did not argue that any of the purchase agreement’s terms are reasonably susceptible to their interpretation or that the terms are ambiguous such that parol evidence is necessary.

Therefore, Hunt’s statements during the sales process that she was granting an easement in favor of the Batta Property constituted parol evidence that was inadmissible to vary the terms of the purchase agreement.

LESSONS:

1.         During a sale transaction, all aspects of the property being purchased should be confirmed in written agreements, and special attention should be given to the relationship between adjacent properties.

2.         An easement is an interest in the land of another, which entitles the owner of the easement to a limited use or enjoyment of the other’s land.

3.         An easement creates a nonpossessory right to enter and use land in another’s possession and obligates the possessor not to interfere with the uses authorized by the easement.

4.         Although an easement is an interest in real property and generally must be agreed to in writing, an oral agreement to grant an easement will be enforced where the grantee improves the easement and otherwise performs under the terms of the agreement.