Easement Cannot be Granted on Inconsistent Theories
An easement — an interest in the land of another entitling the easement owner to a limited use or enjoyment of another’s land — can be established by a variety of theories. Among them are:
- Express grant — normally accomplished in writing, but can also be given by an oral grant followed by usage and/or improvement of the easement.
- Implied easement — will be found where: (1) the owner of property conveys or transfers a portion of that property to another; (2) the owner’s prior existing use of the property was of a nature that the parties must have intended or believed that the use would continue even after the sale; and (3) the easement is reasonably necessary to the use and benefit of the land.
- Prescriptive easement — will be found where the party seeking the easement proves use of the property for the statutory period of five years and where the use has been: (1) open and notorious; (2) continuous and uninterrupted; (3) hostile or adverse to the true owner; and (4) under claim of right. Adverse use means without the explicit or implicit permission of the landowner.
An easement cannot be based on all three of the above. The first two theories involve an intentional grant of an easement — i.e., with permission. The third requires adverse use without permission.
In an opinion recently published by California’s Second Appellate District — Batta v. Hunt — the Court of Appeal addressed a case where the trial court granted an easement based on all three theories.
Facts: adjacent apartment building properties with parking issues
Therese Hunt owned two adjacent properties. In 1994, Hunt sold one of the properties to Eli and Maha Batta. The Hunt property contained a four-unit apartment building. The Batta property contained a nine-unit apartment building.
In 2019, the Battas sought a parking covenant from Hunt to prove to the City of Los Angeles that the Batta property had sufficient available parking spaces. Hunt refused to sign the covenant. The Battas sued.
The Battas’ complaint sought an easement allowing their tenants to use four parking spaces on the Hunt property and allowing the placement of a garbage dumpster adjacent to the four parking spaces. The complaint alleged the Battas’ tenants had parked in the same locations on the Hunt property since 1994 and the dumpster had always been at its location next to the parking spaces.
Trial court: easement granted on three theories
The court conducted a two-day bench trial. During trial, the court allowed the Battas to amend their complaint to claim an easement by implication.
After trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the Battas. The court found there was an easement by implication, by oral grant, and by prescription in favor of the Batta property for three parking spaces on the Hunt property and space for trash and recycling dumpsters. It also found a nonexclusive driveway easement by implication, oral grant, and by prescription in order for the Battas’ tenants to access the parking spaces and dumpsters.
The appeal followed.
Court of Appeal: reversed; trial court’s findings were inconsistent and irreconcilable
The Court of Appeal reversed.
The court noted that the Battas’ claims for easement by express grant and easement by implication required a finding that Hunt, either expressly or impliedly, agreed to grant the easement. However, the easement by prescription claim required a finding that the Battas’ use of the disputed area was hostile and adverse to Hunt — i.e., without Hunt’s permission. “Since the trial court found the Battas met their burden under all three theories, it necessarily found that Hunt impliedly or expressly granted the Battas an easement while also finding Hunt never granted the Battas permission to use the disputed area.” The court concluded that those inconsistent findings “require reversal.”
The court confirmed that it was appropriate for a complaint to allege “alternative legal theories” (which might conflict with one another) supporting an easement claim and for the plaintiff to present evidence on all of those claims. However, if the plaintiff does not eventually “elect” which claim to stand on, the trial court has a duty “to decide which of the antagonistic causes of action have been sustained[.] … If the judgment is based on irreconcilable contradictory findings, the judgment must be reversed.”
The court also declined to modify the judgment and affirm as modified, finding the evidence did not support an easement by oral grant, and the trial court abused its discretion by allowing an amendment during trial allowing the Battas to add a claim for easement by implication without allowing Hunt a sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery and marshal evidence addressing that new theory.
The court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, which will likely include a new trial.
Lesson
Under the Batta opinion, an easement cannot be granted on conflicting theories. An easement by grant or implication is inconsistent with a prescriptive easement.