How Far Must the Owner of a Right-of-Way Easement Go to Maintain It?
California law is clear that the owner of a private right-of-way easement has a duty to maintain the easement. What is less clear is how far that duty to maintain may stretch. This is the issue that a court grappled with in a decision published earlier this month in a case called Schneider v. Lane. The Schneider court recognized that no prior California case had decided the issue before it and ultimately concluded that the duty to maintain a private right-of-way easement is limited. In Schneider, for example, the duty did not require an easement owner to stabilize a riverbank which threatened the easement’s access route due to a known risk of erosion.
Facts of Schneider v. Lane
Karla Lane and a couple, Erberhard and Ursula Schneider, were adjoining property owners. At one time, the properties had a single owner. Lane’s property was landlocked and the only access to public roads was through an express right-of-way easement across the Schneiders’ property. Notably, the easement was not specifically identified via metes and bounds. The deed conveying the easement described the easement as “a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress along the existing road and driveway…” Up until 2002, the existing road which served as the right-of-way easement was known as Old River Road. However, in 2002, flooding from the nearby Trinity River washed away part of Old River Road, destroying the easement and leaving it unusable.
An initial lawsuit between Lane and the Schneiders led to a judgment in 2011 finding that the easement was a general easement which ran with the land and burdened the entire servient tenement (the Schneiders’ property). Thus, Lane was entitled to have the court designate a new access route across the Schneiders’ property, which it did. During that case, the Schneiders had unsuccessfully argued that Lane was obligated to rebuild Old River Road (at a cost of several hundreds of thousands of dollars) and could not otherwise move the easement route.
More flooding in 2018 caused significant damage to the 2011 route as a result of erosion to the riverbank which sat thirty to fifty feet from the 2011 easement route. A second lawsuit ensued where Lane asserted that she again had the right to move the easement route to a new location on the Schneiders’ property, while the Schneiders again argued that Lane should be forced to repair the 2011 route. The Schneiders argued Lane’s failure to repair and maintain was even more culpable than in the initial suit because she now had notice of a known risk of erosion along the riverbank.
Trial Court: Maintenance Duty Extends to Nearby Riverbank
The trial court’s analysis focused on the scope of California Civil Code section 845, which states: “The owner of any easement in the nature of a private right-of-way, or of any land to which any such easements is attached, shall maintain it in repair.” Focusing on the language extending maintenance duties to “any land to which any such easement is attached,” the trial court concluded that Section 845 imposed an obligation on Lane to maintain the easement and that obligation included repairing and protecting the riverbank.
Court of Appeal: Reversed; Maintenance Duty Does Not Require Easement Owner to Construct Something New
On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and limited the scope of Section 845’s maintenance duties. First, the appellate court explained that the trial court erred in interpreting the term “attached” as it is used in Section 845, explaining that “the land to which an appurtenant easement is attached is the dominant tenement, which in this instance is Lane’s property.” From there, the appellate court considered whether Section 845 could require Lane to stabilize the riverbank at her expense where the riverbank is located on the servient tenement (the Schneiders’ property) and is thirty to fifty feet away from the easement’s access route.
The court focused on Section 845’s phrase “maintain it in repair” and determined that phrase means Lane (and other easement owners) are required to “maintain or keep up and preserve the easement in good and sound condition.” However, that duty does not require Lane to create something new or construct a new improvement. Repairs and maintenance are focused on preserving the property in its original condition.
By way of analogy, the appellate court explained that road repairs and maintenance might include resurfacing or filling pot holes, but building or upgrading a road evolves into something more, like construction.
Lessons
With respect to Civil Code section 845, the Schneider case provides necessary guidance as to the scope of duties owed by a right-of-way easement owner with respect to maintaining the easement. For both the dominant tenement (the party benefitting from the easement) and the servient tenement (the party whose land is burdened by the easement), it is important to understand the easement owner has a duty to maintain the easement area in its original condition, but that duty generally does not require the easement owner to create something new.