Looking for CA Common Law Right of Way Rullings, Judgements or Statutes

A vacant lot has a new owner who has posted a "No Trespassing" sign. There are two gates in the fence that runs the length of one side of the property, and two foot paths from the gates that traverse the property. All of the neighbors have used the foot paths for at least the 22 years that we've owned the property on the other side of the fence.

I explained to all the neighbors that he most likely put up the sign so that he'd be off the the hook if anyone slipped and fell or twisted an ankle in a gopher hole. No such luck. He couldn't care less if anyone breaks their neck, he just doesn't want anyone setting foot on "his" property. I tried to tell him that it was bit unreasonable, not to mention un-neighborly to force folks to hike up to the road and go the long way around a "vacant" field, and that once he builds on the property, nobody would want to cross his land. But, he wants me to lock "our" gates and stay off his vacant lot. The fence is 6 inches inside our property so rather than get into a confrontation with this guy, I'd rather give him a copy of the research to bring him up to speed.

So if you have any links that might help, please post them here.

Thanks in advance.

A comon law easement essentially allows each parcel to have access to the road and in some cases provides access for utilities. But since this lot is fenced with gates it is clear that there is some intent for the owner to maintian his right to his property and he can enforce that by posting a no tresspassing sign, for in fact, it is his land and he would be responsible if someone was injuried.

If he or another lot were landlocked, then there might be reason for a common law easement or where adverse possession might come into play, but again he has a fence. I understand that many properties in California such as corner lots or other publicly accessable lands often block access one day a year to maintain their right and not lose it to public domain. Here is a link to something that covers a slightly different situation but covers 3 types of easements.

Inman News The best consumer real estate news on the web. ... easement hostile use time is just five years in California. ... does not have access to a public road. ... For full details, please consult a local real estate attorney ...
http://www.mortgage101.com/partner-scripts/Articles/story.asp?ID=42345

Thanks for the reply, this is such a great site...

Thanks for the reply, this is such a great site...

I'll follow the link, but, there is NO fence ON the vacant property.

We installed a fence on OUR property 22 years ago because we had small children and animals (goats, geese etc) to keep IN at the time. The vacant land is a corner lot bounded by two roads.

It's true that many property owners in Southern California make sure that they deny access at least one day a year to property that is commonly used by the public. I have no idea why this guy is being so un-neighborly since he doesn't even live in our town. My intention is to suggest to the new owner that playing hardball with people who've lived here for 20+ years will only encourage someone to commence adversarial possession proceedings.

I city boy bought a "flag" shaped lot down the road several years back that had a paved driveway as the "pole" portion of the lot. The driveway had been used by the neighbor for over 20 years to access their house, even though their property road frontage. The city boy chained the driveway one night and the neighbor called the sheriff who cut the lock because the neighbor had no other access to their house. When it finally got in front of the judge, the city boy was asked if he was aware that the neighbor was using the driveway. He said he was, but that he was sure he could get that changed after he bought the property. The judge said he should've taken care of it before he bought the property because he was ordering that the neighbor was to be given a legal easement to use the driveway, and since she'd never had to pay any upkeep in the past, the judge ordered that everything stays the way it had been for the last 20+ years.

Ruben Leon said:

Thanks for the reply, this is such a great site...

I'll follow the link, but, there is NO fence ON the vacant property.

We installed a fence on OUR property 22 years ago because we had small children and animals (goats, geese etc) to keep IN at the time. The vacant land is a corner lot bounded by two roads.

It's true that many property owners in Southern California make sure that they deny access at least one day a year to property that is commonly used by the public. I have no idea why this guy is being so un-neighborly since he doesn't even live in our town. My intention is to suggest to the new owner that playing hardball with people who've lived here for 20+ years will only encourage someone to commence adversarial possession proceedings.

I city boy bought a "flag" shaped lot down the road several years back that had a paved driveway as the "pole" portion of the lot. The driveway had been used by the neighbor for over 20 years to access their house, even though their property road frontage. The city boy chained the driveway one night and the neighbor called the sheriff who cut the lock because the neighbor had no other access to their house. When it finally got in front of the judge, the city boy was asked if he was aware that the neighbor was using the driveway. He said he was, but that he was sure he could get that changed after he bought the property. The judge said he should've taken care of it before he bought the property because he was ordering that the neighbor was to be given a legal easement to use the driveway, and since she'd never had to pay any upkeep in the past, the judge ordered that everything stays the way it had been for the last 20+ years.

Click to expand...

**You can check out this link on 'prescription easements': http://www.netvista.net/~hpb/av-ease2.html

**See if this applies to your situation.

My intention is to suggest to the new owner that playing hardball with people who've lived here for 20+ years will only encourage someone to commence adversarial possession proceedings.

Click to expand...

Per California Civil Code of Procedures Section 325, adverse possession requires that the area be substantially inclosed, cultivated or improved, and that the claimant has occupied it and paid taxes on it for 5 years.

So, you can forget you ambitions to own his land.

Still, the request for you to lock your gate is ridiculous; he should build his own fence if the neighbors won't obey the signs he is entitled to post.

We've locke both gates

Thanks for all the tips....

We never had any thought of trying to gain "ownership" of this parcel, we just didn't like the new owner making an issue about people taking a short-cut across a vacant lot.

Update: This Bozo takes the cake. His lot is on the side of a hill and within the city limits, so he's required to hook into the sewer if he wants to build. Problem is, he needs to negotiate an easement with one of two neighbors down-hill. Since I own one of the lots and the the other owner is the fella who uses the short-cut more than anyone else, he's going to have a difficult time getting the easement.

Why anyone would buy a lot without a sewer easement and then piss off the only two down-hill neighbors, is beyond comprehension.

Does anyone here know if this guy will have a chance against either of us in court if he tries to force one of us to give him access to the sewer?