Friends of the Trails v. Blasius
Decision Date | 28 February 2000 |
Docket Number | No. C031330.,No. C032253.,C031330.,C032253. |
Citation | 78 Cal.App.4th 810,93 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 |
Parties | FRIENDS OF THE TRAILS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Jon E. BLASIUS et al., Defendants and Appellants; Nevada Irrigation District, Defendant and Respondent. Friends of the Trails et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Jon E. Blasius et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Haley & Bilheimer, Allan S. Haley, Nevada City, and John Bilheimer, for Plaintiffs, Respondents, and Appellants.
James S. Burling, Eric Grant, Sacramento; John A. Ramirez, Mill Valley; and Harold E. Johnson, for Defendants, Respondents and Appellants Jon & Robin Blasius.
Minasian, Spruance, Baber, Meith, Soares & Sexton, and William H. Spruance, Oroville, for Defendants, Respondents, and Appellants Nevada Irrigation District.
This matter concerns appeals and cross-appeals from the judgment in an action to declare a public easement for use of a road along the side of an irrigation canal.
Defendants Jon and Robin Blasius (collectively the Landowners) appeal from a judgment which declares and enjoins interference with a public easement for a right-of-way and recreation along the portion of their property crossed by an irrigation district canal. They contend the trial court erred in finding a public easement. We conclude the public acquired an easement passage and recreational purposes before March 4, 1972, in the manner provided for under Gion v. City of Santa Cruz (consolidated with Dietz v. King) (1970) 2 Cal.3d 29, 84 Cal.Rptr. 162, 465 P.2d 50 (Gion-Dietz ). We also conclude the easement was not extinguished or otherwise affected by the enactment of section 1009, which prospectively imposes restrictions on the acquisition of a public easement. (See Stats.1971. ch. 941, § 2, pp. 1846-1847.) We also conclude the trial court did not err in awarding attorney's fees to Friends of the Trails under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
We will affirm the judgment and the orders awarding attorney's fees and costs.
The land in question is adjacent to a 240-foot section of the aptly named Rattlesnake Canal, which snakes through the California foothills for many miles. This section of the canal, constructed from 1926-1927, crosses the Landowners' property and runs generally north to south. The canal consists of a ditch approximately 16 feet wide and an adjacent berm. The ditch is used to convey water for purposes of the Nevada Irrigation District (NID). Atop the berm is a road approximately nine feet wide, used by NID to access the canal and adjacent facilities for their maintenance and repair. NID maintains and operates the portion of the canal in issue pursuant to a written easement of record.
The land in question has been owned by various persons. During the period 1957 to 1981 it was owned by Frank and Madeleine Duncombe. During this period Frank Duncombe was aware the public used the canal road and he believed they had the right so to do. No one asked for or received his permission to use the road during the 25 years he owned the land. He did not object to or attempt to limit the public's use of the road.
In 1981 Duncombe conveyed the land to Deborah Best. She had occupied adjoining land since 1966 and used the canal road for recreational purposes with her children. Contemporaneous with that conveyance Best married the defendant Jon Blasius. He acquired a 75 percent interest in the land in 1991, when Best died. He remarried and conveyed his interest to himself and his new wife, defendant Robin Blasius.
In August 1996, me Landowners obtained the fee interest in the entire property. In September 1996, they blocked the canal road with a locked gate at each end of the section that crosses their land. Only the Landowners and NID have keys to the gates. Since that time the Landowners have denied passage through the gates to members of the public, including their neighbors.
On September 4, 1997, Friends of the Trails filed the complaint beginning this action. They sought to quiet title to a public easement for recreational purposes, including walking running, fishing, and riding horses and bicycles. They also sought injunctive and declaratory relief. They named as defendants the Landowners and NID.
Eventually the matter came on for trial. Friends of the Trails adduced evidence from 19 witnesses summarized as follows by the trial court. ... [¶] ...
The trial courts statement or decision explains its view that Friends of the Trails had proved the public acquired an easement for recreational purposes before March 1972, in the manner provided for under Gion-Dietz, supra. The ensuing judgment declares the public had acquired title to: "an easement for public right-of-way and recreational purposes across the property presently owned by Jon and Robin Blasius." The judgment provides that the easement: "consists of the width of the Rattlesnake Canal plus its westerly berm, which is nine feet wide, more or less...." It provides that the easement is: The judgment enjoins the Landowners from interfering with or obstructing the easement so declared. In conclusion it recites: "No relief is granted in favor of plaintiffs against defendant [NID]."
In proceedings after judgment, Friends of the Trails were awarded attorney's fees, under section 1021.5, and costs of suit against NID and the Landowners.
The Landowners contend the trial court erred in finding a public easement. They argue that such an easement is an unwarranted application of Gion-Dietz, supra, and, in any event, is precluded under the law pertaining to easements because of the pre-existing NID easement. We disagree.
We first turn to a brief survey of the doctrine of implied-in-law dedication on which the claim of a public easement is predicated.
Dedications may occur pursuant to statute or the common law. (See 26 Cal.Jur.3d (1976) Dedication, § 2.) Here we are concerned with the common law. Doctrinal impediments have barred the application of the common law of prescription to justify the acquisition of a public easement. (See e.g., Bruce and Ely, The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land (rev. ed.1995) ¶ 5.09, pp. 5-45-5-46.) For this reason in California it is said that "[a] public easement arises only by dedication." (People v. Sayig (1951) 101 Cal.App.2d 890, 896, 226 P.2d 702; also see, Bolger v. Foss (1884) 65 Cal. 250, 251, 3 P. 871; Smith v. Kraintz (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 696, 701, 20 Cal.Rptr. 471.)
(Gallagher, Jure, and Agnew, Implied Dedication: The Imaginary Waves of Gion-Dietz (1973) 5 Sw.U. L.Rev. 48, 52, fns. omitted (hereafter Implied Dedication).)
A common law dedication may be express or implied. Express dedication arises where the owner's intent to dedicate is manifested in the overt acts of the owner, e.g., by execution of a deed. An implied dedication arises when the evidence supports an attribution of intent to dedicate without the presence of such acts. (See 26 Cal.Jur.3d, supra, § 4; Implied Dedication, supra, at p. 53.) A dedication is implied in fact when the period of public use is less than the period for prescription and the acts or omissions of the owner afford an implication of actual consent or acquiescence to dedication. (See, e.g., Union Transp. Co. v. Sacramento County (1594) 42 Cal.2d 235, 241, 267 P.2d 10.) A dedication is implied by law when the public use is adverse and exceeds the period for prescription. (Ibid.)
In Gion-Dietz, supra, the California Supreme Court applied the doctrine of implied dedication by law to find public easements of right of way and for recreational uses to two shoreline properties. The opinion identified three significant questions (Gion-Dietz, supra, 2 Cal.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Adoption of Joshua S.
... ... department discharge of employee for positive drug test violated federal regulations]; Friends of the Trails v. Blasius (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 810, 825-826, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 [landowner ... ...
- Friends of the Hastain Trail v. Coldwater Dev. LLC
- Friends of Martin's Beach v. Martin's Beach 1 LLC
- United States v. Ellis
-
CALIFORNIA'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FISH.
...action for a public nuisance, if it is specially injurious to himself, but not otherwise."). (484) Friends of the Trails v. Blasius, 93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 193, 208 (Ct. App. 2000) (citing CAL. CODE Civ. PROC [section] 1021.511); see Kern River Pub. Access Comm., 217 Cal. Rptr. at 138 (discussing......
-
The Top Ten Real Property Cases of 2016
...Santa Cruz (consolidated with Dietz v. King), 2 Cal. 3d 29 (1970).19. Cal. Civ. Code § 1009(b); see Friends of the Trails v. Blasius, 78 Cal. App. 4th 810, 820 (2000).20. Gion, 2 Cal. 3d at 39.21. Cty. of Orange v. Chandler-Sherman Corp., 54 Cal. App. 3d 561, 565 (1976).22. See Cal. Civ. Co......
-
Scher v. Burke—the Doctrine of Implied Dedication to a Public Use for Roadways and Recreational Use in California; Implications for Public Policy and Private Real Property Rights
...82 Cal. App.4th at 355.53. Redwood Empire, 2000 WL 221447630 at *5.54. Id. at *5.55. Id. at *16.56. Friends of the Trails v. Blasius, 78 Cal. App.4th 810 (2000).57. Id. at 820.58. Id. at 823.59. Id. at 823—24.60. City of Pasadena v. California-Michigan Land and Water Co., 17 Cal.2d. 576 (19......
-
Scher v. Burke—the Doctrine of Implied Dedication to a Public Use for Roadways and Recreational Use in California; Implications for Public Policy and Private Real Property Rights
...82 Cal. App.4th at 355.53. Redwood Empire, 2000 WL 221447630 at *5.54. Id. at *5.55. Id. at *16.56. Friends of the Trails v. Blasius, 78 Cal. App.4th 810 (2000).57. Id. at 820.58. Id. at 823.59. Id. at 823—24.60. City of Pasadena v. California-Michigan Land and Water Co., 17 Cal.2d. 576 (19......