Castillo v. Celaya

• Decision Date: 22 November 1957
• Citation: 155 Cal.App.2d 469,318 P.2d 113
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Ray F. CASTILLO and Claudia M. Catillo, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Lucille CELAYA, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 5562.

Page 113

318 P.2d 113

155 Cal.App.2d 469

Ray F. CASTILLO and Claudia M. Catillo, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Lucille CELAYA, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 5562.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

Nov. 22, 1957.

Ferguson & Judge, Fullerton, for appellant.

Samuel Hurwitz, Orange, for respondents.

MUSSELL, Justice.

This is an action in which plaintiffs seek to establish an easement for roadway purposes over the westerly 12 feet of defendant's property in Orange county recover damages, and for injunctive relief. The 12-foot strip of land involved extends northerly from what is known as the Placentia-Yorba Road to the property owned and occupied by plaintiffs and lies along the easterly boundary of property owned by one J. Coleman Travis. Plaintiffs used the area involved for roadway purposes, as a means of ingress to and egress from their property from the Placentia-Yorba Road, continuously and without interruption from 1938 to November 27, 1954, when the defendant erected a fence across the roadway, placed a gate thereon and prohibited plaintiffs from using the road. This action follwed and the trial court found, inter alia, that at all times since 1938 and continuously to the time of trial plaintiffs have openly and notoriously and adversely to defendant claimed the right to the use and ownership of said roadway as being appurtenant to their land and under a claim of right; that at all times since 1938 plaintiffs have openly and notoriously maintained and repaired the said roadway and have kept the same in condition for the used of said plaintiffs; that the defendant on or about November 27, 1954, wrongfully obstructed the use of said roadway by plaintiffs by erecting a fence across said right of way and that plaintiffs have suffered damages in the sum of $250 by reason of said obstruction. The court granted a perpetual easement and right of way to plaintiffs over a roadway 15 feet in width, instead of 12 feet as claimed in the complaint. Defendant was ordered to remove the said obstruction and plaintiffs were awarded damages in the sum of $250. Defendant appeals from the judgment and her principal contention on appeal is that the evidence does not support a finding that the use of the roadway by plaintiffs was adverse and under a claim of right rather than permissive.

The questions whether the use of the easement is adverse and under a claim of right, or permissive and with the owner's consent, and whether the nature of the user is sufficient to put the owner on notice, are questions of fact and if there is any substantial evidence to support the judgment, it must be affirmed. All conflicts must be resolved in favor of the prevailing party and the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to him. O'Banion v. Borba, 32 Cal.2d 145, 147-148, 195 P.2d 10; Arnold v. City of San Diego, 120 Cal.App.2d 353, 356, 261 P.2d 33. In Clark v. Clark, 148 Cal.App.2d 223, 306 P.2d 556, it was held that the user, in order to initiate and ultimately establish a prescriptive easement, must be in hostility to the legal title, and must be under a claim of right actually or impliedly communicated to the owner of the land; that the adverse user must exist for five years and the proof must overcome presumptions that occupation by the claimants is in subordination to the legal title, and that whether or not the user made was a matter of neighborly accommodation or was adverse is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court in the light of the relations of the parties, their conduct, the situation of the property and all the surrounding circumstances.

In Mathews v. Brinton, 132 Cal.App.2d 433, 438, 282 P.2d 93, 96, it was held that 'The question as to the effect of any presumption that the use is under a claim of right and adverse to the owner of the land, must be considered along...