Arciero Ranches v. Meza
| Decision Date | 13 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. F015045,F015045 |
| Citation | 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 127,17 Cal.App.4th 114 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ARCIERO RANCHES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Amador R. MEZA et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
On July 29, 1987, plaintiff and respondent, Arciero Ranches ("Arciero") filed a verified complaint alleging that defendants and appellants Amador Meza, Raquel Meza, and Does 1 through 100 had willfully trespassed, and would continue to trespass, on a certain road ("the farm road") located on the Brothers Ranch in Kern County and owned by Arciero. Arciero sought, inter alia, a permanent injunction enjoining each defendant from entering the Brothers Ranch or removing any barriers located thereon. Arciero also sought both compensatory and exemplary damages. On August 19, 1987, the complaint was amended to include Pedro Meza as a defendant.
Defendants and appellants ("the Mezas") filed their answer to the complaint on March 17, 1988. 1 In it, they generally and specifically denied the allegations contained in the complaint and, as affirmative defenses, asserted that they had obtained a prescriptive easement which allowed them to travel on the farm road and further, that Arciero's claim was time barred under Code of Civil Procedure sections 318, 319, and 320. 2
The Mezas also filed a cross-complaint alleging that they had obtained a prescriptive easement in the roadway and that Arciero had wrongfully interfered with their lawful right to use said easement. They asked the court to declare them owners of the prescriptive easement and to quiet title accordingly. In addition, the Mezas sought monetary damages, both compensatory and punitive, as well as a temporary restraining order and injunctions, preliminary and permanent, enjoining Arciero from interfering with the Mezas' allegedly lawful use of the easement.
Arciero timely filed its answer to the cross-complaint admitting it was the owner of the subject property but otherwise denying each and every allegation contained in the cross-complaint.
The matter was set for jury trial on June 25, 1990. For some undisclosed reason, the trial was continued until July 9, 1990.
On the day set for trial, a discussion ensued between the court and counsel regarding bifurcation of the legal and equitable issues. After hearing argument from both counsel, the court ruled that the Mezas had no right to a jury trial on the equitable issues and ordered that they be heard by the court prior to resolution of the legal issues.
Both parties presented testimonial and documentary evidence in support of their respective positions on the issues declared by the court to be equitable in nature. After both sides concluded their respective cases and presented oral argument, the court took the matter under submission.
On August 30, 1990, the court notified the parties of its intention to find that the Mezas "did not acquire a prescriptive easement in the property of [Arciero] as they were unlawfully using the land after the removal of fences and obstacles placed on the land by [Arciero]." Neither party requested a formal statement of decision as provided for in section 632. 3
Pursuant to the court's order, Arciero prepared the judgment in Arciero's favor as well as the proposed permanent injunction enjoining the Mezas from entering certain portions of the Brothers Ranch and removing any barriers thereon. The judgment and permanent injunction were signed by the court on October 4, 1990, and entered on October 8, 1990. Notice of Entry of Judgment was served by Arciero on October 16, 1990.
Amador R. Meza and Rachel Meza filed their notice of appeal on December 4, 1990. 4 On appeal, the Mezas contend the trial court erroneously denied their right to a trial by jury, misapplied the law regarding prescriptive easements and committed prejudicial error when it overruled the Mezas' objection to the admission of evidence concerning alternate routes available to the Mezas that would provide access to their property. The Mezas maintain that the court should have found, as a matter of law, that they obtained a prescriptive easement in the farm road. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Frank Arciero and others first acquired the property known as the Brothers Ranch in 1973. With the exception of one area not relevant to the present case, the perimeter of their newly-acquired property was fenced using metal posts and chicken wire topped with two strands of barbed wire. The fence was installed to prevent people from inadvertently entering the Arciero property.
Mr. Arciero testified that the farm road did not exist when Arciero first purchased the property. However, as they began to develop the property, Arciero realized the importance of having a road in that location; thus, the farm road was developed to run in an east-west direction in the approximate center of section 13 so as to connect Cantil Road with the eastern boundary of Arciero's property.
In either 1976 or 1977, Frank Arciero placed six-inch diameter steel posts filled with concrete on both sides of the farm road where it intersects with Cantil Road on the western boundary of his property. These posts, connected by a single cable with a locking mechanism, were used to close the road whenever the area was being farmed. 5 At this time, a fence was the only means used to prevent access from the eastern end of the farm road.
Mr. Arciero testified that, from 1973 to 1981, no one, save employees of the ranch, was given permission to use the farm road. Amador Meza worked for Arciero regularly, but intermittently, during these years. 6 As such, he was given permission to use the road while employed by Arciero.
Mr. Anderson, Brothers Ranch foreman during this time period, and Mr. Perez, foreman for a nearby Arciero ranch, both testified that they had seen "the Mezas" using the farm road in "1979 and 1981," but also indicated that it was not the primary route used by the Mezas to get to their property. 7 Mr. Perez said that he had seen the Mezas use a third route as well.
Mr. Anderson indicated further that the fence at the eastern end of the farm road was torn down a "number of times" during the same time period and, once discovered, repairs were promptly made.
Sometime in the early 80's, Mr. Arciero noticed "weekenders" staying on some nearby property but did not concern himself with them since they did not travel across his property in order to gain access to theirs.
In early-to-mid-July 1981, Arciero sold all of its real property holdings in the area, including the Brothers Ranch, to Butte Oil and Gas and Farming ("Butte"). Pursuant to the sales agreement, Arciero held the promissory note on the property, which was secured by a deed of trust. At the time of the sale, the lock and cable used to close the western end of the farm road were still intact.
Butte maintained Arciero's policy of only allowing employees to use the farm road. Amador Meza was employed by Butte on several different occasions, but Mr. Anderson, who was now employed by Butte as manager of all the ranches, could not recall the exact dates of his employment. 8 According to Mr. Perez, an employee of both Arciero and Butte, the Mezas continued to use the farm road on a near daily basis during the time Butte owned the property in question. However, Mr. Anderson testified that the road running along the railroad was the primary route used by the Mezas.
Mr. Arciero went to the property on two or three occasions after Butte began falling behind in its payments. Other than the presence of a large number of tumbleweeds, he did not notice anything unusual about the condition of the property. Everything, including the fencing, was intact. On one such occasion, he noticed the locked cable being used to block access to the farm road.
Frank Arciero first noticed the Mezas living on some nearby property in 1985.
In late August of 1985, with Butte approximately one year behind in its payments, Arciero foreclosed on the deed of trust and reacquired the property. Inspection of the property revealed that, for the first time in Arciero's ownership of the Brothers Ranch, some of the fencing at the east end of the farm road had been taken down.
Mr. Arciero directed his foreman to repair the fence and to place rocks in front of the damaged portion to prevent trespassers from entering his property. He also told his foreman to sink some posts in the area and post "no trespassing" signs. The foreman complied with his request, and the following week Mr. Arciero personally inspected the work.
However, around September or October of 1985, Mr. Arciero returned to the area and found that all but one of the signs had been removed. When they returned to the area at a later date, they found the fence torn down. The fence was repaired, but every week that they returned to the area, they found the fence torn down. 9
When Mr. Arciero learned of the damage, he tried to contact those he believed to be responsible by going to their mobile home. There, he contacted two young men, one of whom identified himself as the Mezas' son, and told them that he did not want them trespassing on his property. He asked the young Meza to have his father contact him.
The Mezas' son was displeased with the news. In fact, one of the two men (the record doesn't indicate which one) told Mr. Arciero that someone was going to get hurt if the road was closed. Mr. Arciero told them to forget it; that it was not worth anyone being hurt. This was the only time Mr. Arciero spoke with anyone in the Meza family regarding their use of the farm road.
Towards the end of 1986, after the rock pile had been removed for the second time,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cobb v. Gabriele, H029796 (Cal. App. 4/30/2007)
...by the tort and some other wrongful act of another. (Connerly v. Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 739, 748; Arciero Ranches v. Meza (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 114, 124; see generally 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Actions, § 743, p. 932; 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Pleading, § 778, p......
-
HLC Properties, Ltd. v. MCA Records, Inc., B191608 (Cal. App. 5/16/2008)
...Plaintiffs also rely on two more recent court of appeal decisions, Brockey v. Moore (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 86 and Arciero Ranches v. Meza (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 114. Neither case assists plaintiffs because we are bound by the Supreme Court's holding in Thomson, supra, 7 Cal.2d 671. (Auto Equ......
-
DiPirro v. Bondo Corporation
...relief sought here was cognizable at common law as an equitable action to abate a public nuisance. (See Arciero Ranches v. Meza (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 114, 124-125, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 127; Wolford v. Thomas (1987) 190 Cal. App.3d 347, 353-354, 235 Cal.Rptr. 422.) "The essence of an action to aba......
-
People v. Englebrecht
...776.) Relying on Pacific Western Oil Co. v. Bern Oil Co. (1939) 13 Cal.2d 60, 68, 87 P.2d 1045, and Arciero Ranches v. Meza (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 114, 125, 21 Cal. Rptr.2d 127, Englebrecht nonetheless argues he was entitled to trial by jury on the issue of whether he was a member of the Pos......