Can Quitclaims landlock in California?

[granitesentinel]

Basic Question: In California, can the owner of a parcel landlock themselves and forfeit access to utilities by selling and quitclaiming surrounding lands?

Background: Party A was the original owner of several contiguous rural parcels. Party A & B entered into a joint tenancy to develop an agricultural operation. Party A simultaneously sold Party B a small parcel of land (Parcel 1) at the center of the parcels in order to remove a deadbeat tenant. Parcel 1 was intended to be contributed to an entity to be created to formalize the joint tenancy arrangement (LLC), but was never accomplished. Ten years later, the joint tenancy was terminated between Parties A and B. Quitclaims were used to transfer Party B’s interests in the surrounding parcels back to Party A, but the Settlement Agreements did not include Parcel 1. Party A sold their remaining parcels to Party C nine months after the Settlement.

The original Deed for Parcel 1 does not specify either vehicular access or utility arrangements. The Settlement only states that Party B will retain title to Parcel 1, and any rights which were specifically conveyed in the original Purchase and Sale Agreement for Parcel 1 (there is nothing specific in the PSA).

The Deed calls for one border of Parcel 1 to be “... along the Southerly line of a 40 foot roadway easement...” The easement is in favor of Parties A and C and is primarily an agricultural roadway. The road itself is about 12’ wide at present. Party B has encroached into the easement zone with stone walls and plantings.

To access Parcel 1, Party B must now cross over the lands of Party C. A utility easement runs to the outside border of Party C’s lands. Utilities (electricity and telephone) are attached to a house on Party C’s land, which is tapped and a series of private transmission lines and poles traverse C’s lands to reach the cabin on Parcel 1.

Detailed Questions:
1. To what extend could utility taps removed to Parcel 1?
2. Is there a ‘superior right’ to electricity utilized for agricultural use?
3. How could the roadway easement be cleared to the full 40’ width?
4. Can Party B have landlocked themselves with the quitclaims to either vehicular or pedestrian traffic?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[154NH773]

Let me start this discussion off with some questions.
It appears that Parcel 1 is still owned by "B". It also appears that there is a 40' easement that fronts on the north side of Parcel 1.
Although the deed for Parcel 1 doesn't state the easement is for its use, it does reference the easement. Is that correct?

Is there wording in any of the deeds of the other parcel ("C" formerly "A") granting an easement to Parcel 1?

If no formal easement exists in favor of Parcel 1, the owner "B" would have a good case for an easement of necessity, in that he was a former partner in the property over which it passes. If the present owner of "C" denies the claim, then a court case is the only way to settle the issue.

The court could/would set conditions for the width of the easement, as well as the utility easement rights.

If 40' rights are granted, then the easement could be cleared for that width.

The owner of Parcel 1 could get an injunction to prevent disconnection of his electric utility until the other issues are settled.

 

[granitesentinel]

Thanks for the reply.

It appears that Parcel 1 is still owned by "B". It also appears that there is a 40' easement that fronts on the north side of Parcel 1.
Although the deed for Parcel 1 doesn't state the easement is for its use, it does reference the easement. Is that correct?

Yes. It appears the Deed calls for Parcel 1 to be encumbered and limited by the easement on the north side of the parcel. Farm use of the surrounding lands predates the creation of the parcel.

Is there wording in any of the deeds of the other parcel ("C" formerly "A") granting an easement to Parcel 1?

To my knowledge there was never an easement granted to Parcel 1 in any of the other Deeds. Is your logic that if they quitclaimed the surrounding lands, in which there may be an easement in their favor, then they could not claim an easement by necessity? Is the function of a quitclaim to extinguish any and all residual rights?

Note: when I spoke with the division of the Utility that handles easements stated there is no formal utility company right of way to Parcel 1. The Utility's easement ends well inside Party C lands and the last (transformer) pole is located about 130 feet from the main structure on Party C lands. The service drops to that house, where it is split into two separate meters (one for Party C property, and the other for Parcel 1). Electric lines run from the meter to a private pole. Therefore, the transmission lines that traverse Party C lands are private lines (total span across several poles totaling about ~440 feet ie individual spans of ~170 ft and ~120 ft and ~150 ft). The telephone cable runs from the transformer pole directly to the second private pole.

 

[154NH773]

Is your logic that if they quitclaimed the surrounding lands, in which there may be an easement in their favor, then they could not claim an easement by necessity? Is the function of a quitclaim to extinguish any and all residual rights?

If there was an easement in favor of Parcel 1 contained in any previous deed of "A" or "C", then that covanent would likely run with the land, independent of who owns "C". A quit claim to title would not extinguish the easement unless specific language in the quit claim did so.

No, I'm not saying if "B" quitclaimed the "A" parcel, he would lose the right to claim an easement by necessity for Parcel 1.
There's no telling how a court would look at this whole situation, but it is probable that a court would decide that "B" could not/would not, have knowingly landlocked his remaining Parcel 1, and that the most reasonable access would be along the previous right of way.

Although the owner of Parcel 1 may not have a utility easement, it would be difficult for the owner of Parcel "C" to keep him from getting such an easement in court. There is caselaw in other states that extends utility rights to access easements as a reasonable extension of those access rights.