Wall v. Rudolph

• Decision Date: 29 December 1961
• Citation: Wall v. Rudolph, 198 Cal.App.2d 684, 18 Cal.Rptr. 123 (Cal. App. 1961)
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 3 A.L.R.3d 1242 F. Glade WALL, Dorothy Elizabeth Wall and Edgar James, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Max RUDOLPH et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 25158.

Page 123

18 Cal.Rptr. 123

198 Cal.App.2d 684, 3 A.L.R.3d 1242

F. Glade WALL, Dorothy Elizabeth Wall and Edgar James, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Max RUDOLPH et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 25158.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Dec. 29, 1961.

Pray, Price & Williams, Long Beach, James C. Hollingsworth, Ventura, Henry F. Walker, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Sheridan, Orr, Barnes, Duval & Benton, Ventura, for respondents.

ASHBURN, Justice.

Plaintiffs Wall and James appeal from an adverse judgment in an action brought for an injunction, declaratory judgment and other relief with respect to certain private roads in the South Mountain area of Ventura County. The lands in question lie immediately south of the Santa Clara River and south and southwesterly of the city of Santa Paula; they are somewhat level along the river and mountainous to the south. ¹ Respondents' counsel say that this is 'an extremely complicated' case and we add, a perplexing one. A careful study of the record ² discloses as the major legal question that of excessively burdensome use of existing easements sufficient to warrant and require an injunction.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

'A principal which underlies the use of all easements is that the owner of an easement cannot materially increase the burden of it upon the servient estate or impose thereon a new and additional burden.' (17 Am.Jur. § 115, p. 723.)

Prior to October, 1956, the properties involved in the action--those of plaintiffs Wall and James and defendants Lamb and Hill--had been used for citrus growing, general ranching, cattle ranching and occasional oil drilling which mostly resulted in dry wells. The roads over which easements are claimed have various designations but are usually referred to in the record as A, B and C, respectively. Road A, commonly known as South Mountain Road, starts at plaintiff Wall's easterly boundary line and runs west to the 'Lamb turnoff' road at a large rock with a cross on it, which is marked Point B on our diagram; continuing westerly from that point the same road (now known as Road B) extends to the easterly boundary of the Converse Cattle Ranch (presently owned by defendants Hill; Mrs. Hill was formerly Mrs. Converse). Road C, the Lamb turnoff road, originally extended southerly from Point (B to Point A on the boundary between Lamb (1) and Lamb (2) of our diagram.

Road A, a public road, was formally abandoned by the county in 1941, thereupon reverting to the adjoining fee owners. The court found that defendants Lamb and Hill own easements over this strip of land, which is still used as a road, and appellants make no attack upon the finding except as to the extent of the burden of the easement.

As to Road B the finding is that defendants Hill have easements to use same across lands of plaintiffs Wall and James. As to plaintiff James' property the finding is that the Hills have an easement over his triangle, James (2), which is limited to use for any and all general domestic and farm purposes. Appellants make no complaint concerning this latter finding.

Road C. Appellants concede that the Lambs have an easement across plaintiff Wall's property on this Road C; this by virtue of a gratuitous grant from Wall to Lamb of June 18, 1956,--'a 20' easement for road purposes generally described as follows: [Road C].'

As to Hills, the evidence seems sufficiently contradictory to require us to accept as established the fact that they, as successors to Converse, have an easement over Lamb (2) and Lamb (1) and Road C across the Wall property.

One Hobson was the owner in 1907 of a large tract which includes the present Hill and Lamb properties. Hobson and wife conveyed to South Mountain Lemon Company all property on the south side of Roads A and B within the dotted lines shown on our diagram, which includes Lamb (1) but not Lamb (2); they excepted and reserved to themselves, 'their successors and assigns, a right of way, ample for wagon travel' between Points A and B 'provided said right of way shall not be used for the driving of loose stock or cattle.' It is to be noted that the Lemon Company thereby acquired Lamb (1) but not Lamb (2).

As to Road B, South Mountain Lemon Company on December 19, 1941, granted Mrs. Converse (Hill) a 30-foot easement 'over and across the existing road approximately thirty feet wide,' extending from the westerly terminus of the South Mountain Road (approximately Point B) to the easterly terminus of the 'Converse Road.' The grantee agreed 'that the location of the said easement may be changed to such other road as may be established from time to time in place of the said road now existing.'

The trial court held each of the easements over Roads A, B and C to be a 'general and unrestricted easement consisting of rights of way for themselves, their lessees and tenants, and for their respective agents, employees, servants, guests, business visitors and invitees, for automobiles, trucks and other traffic over and upon all portions of [each of said roads] included within the boundaries of any of the lands of plaintiffs described herein, together with the rights to keep and maintain all such portions of said road in good condition and repair.'

It was also found that 'Defendants Max Rudolph, Benjamin Hill, Estella Converse Hill, Clarence R. Lamb and Bertha E. Lamb have, since October, 1956, established certain sumps or dumping grounds for oil well and oil field waste upon the property hereinafter described, owned by defendants Benjamin Hill and Estella Converse Hill, and upon the property hereinafter described owned by Clarence R. Lamb and Bertha E. Lamb, in the near proximity of the properties described in plaintiffs' complaint. In the use of said sumps or dumping grounds, the defendants Max Rudolph [et al] have each operated heavy tank trucks and trucking equipment over said Roads A and C, to transport the waste and materials to be dumped. Fluid waste from said sumps is pumped to a sump located upon the property hereinafter described of Benjamin Hill and Estella Converse Hill, and upon adjoining property in the general area owned by defendants John R. Milligan and Berniece P. Milligan. * * * [I]t is true that defendants intend to continue to operate trucks over said Roads A and C and intent to operate trucks for farm and domestic purposes over Road B.' Also: 'Defendant Max Rudolph is and at all times mentioned in plaintiffs' complaint was a lessee of defendants Benjamin Hill, Estella Converse Hill, Clarence R. Lamb and Bertha E. Lamb in possession of the waste disposal sumps hereinabove mentioned. At all of said times the defendants J & G Oil Well Service Corp., Coastal Vacuum Service, Inc., Thomas A. Smith, Mary Ellen Smith, Grace N. Barnett and Ventura Transfer Company, Inc. were and now are using said Roads A and C as the business visitors and invitees of defendants Benjamin Hill, Estella Converse Hill, Clarence R. Lamb, Bertha E. Lamb and Max Rudolph, and of each of them, for the purpose of running trucks and trucking equipment to and from the waste disposal sumps located upon the lands of defendants Benjamin Hill, Estella Converse Hill, Clarence R. Lamb and Bertha E. Lamb.

'The operation of trucks and trucking equipment complained of by plaintiffs in their complaint is and at all times therein mentioned was upon said Roads A and C.

'Those portions of Roads A, B and C located within the boundaries of any of the lands described in Paragraphs II and III of these findings as belonging to any of the plaintiffs are not public roads.'

The evidence discloses that the properties here involved comprised a quiet area devoted to rural pursuits until the building or operation of the first sump. Then, as plaintiff James phrased, it, the traffic became 'terrific.' Counsel stipulated that 'this was a commercial venture, this sump operation was a commercial business venture in which Mr. Rudolph, as lessee, invited people to dump oil field waste in the sump area,' adding the words, 'for which Mr. Rudolph was making a charge.'

Defendant Lamb in September or October, 1956, made a written agreement with defendant Rudolph leasing to him at a rental of $150 a month and for a period of ten years a certain portion of his property for the purpose of construction, creation, maintenance of an oil field waste sump. Same having been built, defendant Hill discovered it was partly on his land and he exacted payment of $125 a month and entered into a similar arrangement with Rudolph. The record does not disclose the exact location of the sumps but the first one was somewhere on the boundary between parcels marked 'Lamb (2)' and 'Hill' on our diagram; the other one is somewhere outside the area shown thereon.

Prior to the time of building the sumps Hill had used the various roads for transportation of ranch supplies, ranch produce, cattle, and smudge oil for his ranch. Lamb bought his property in 1951 or 1952 and had used Road C for farming purposes, tradesmen's visits and social visitors. Plaintiff Wall had his property in lemons and used the Converse Road (B) and the Lamb turnoff (C), only for farming and 'to serve transportation to the blocks of ground.' Plaintiff James used Road B to serve his ranch property which was in lemons, and other people in the vicinity used it to get to and from their homes. Such occasional use of these roads as was made by oil companies was of a periodic and temporary nature. ³

As soon as Rudolph had built his sump and invited the public to use it an immense truck traffic sprang up on Roads A and C consisting largely of vacuum trucks capable of carrying 125 barrels of sludge. Prior to that time no vacuum trucks had been used by Rudolph over Wall land or James land or the Lemon Company road. In late 1957 or early 1958 Wall's foreman saw 150 trucks using Road A in a 24-hour period (going both ways). Wall himself counted 35...