Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceiling, Inc.

Supreme Court of California · 1984 · Property

PropertyPrescriptive easementsInjunctionsEncroachmentsprescriptive easementopen and notoriouscontinuous useadverse use

Facts

Plaintiffs and defendant owned adjoining commercial parcels acquired from a common owner in 1972. Plaintiffs' building and driveway configuration made it necessary for trucks servicing plaintiffs' loading docks to use part of defendant's vacant land to enter, turn, park, and leave, and that use continued openly and uninterruptedly from 1972 to 1979. Plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate an express easement, but no permission was ever given. After defendant planned development and raised a dirt pad blocking the use, plaintiffs sued; defendant then erected a building on the disputed area while the action was pending.

Issue

When a party has acquired a valid prescriptive easement, may a court require that party to compensate the servient owner for the fair market value of the easement or to contribute to the cost of removing or relocating an encroaching structure that interferes with the easement? Also, was the removal order proper where the structure was built during the litigation with notice of plaintiffs' claim?

Rule

A prescriptive easement arises upon proof of open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use for an uninterrupted five-year period, along a definite and certain line of travel. Once perfected, the easement confers a title by prescription sufficient against all and does not require payment of the easement's fair market value to the underlying owner. Although equity may in an appropriate case condition injunctive relief on a plaintiff's payment of some relocation costs for an innocent encroachment, no such contribution is required when the obstruction was erected with notice of the plaintiff's claim during pending litigation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Fresno, Oak Harbor Foods has used part of neighboring land owned by Mira Sol Storage for delivery trucks for six years. Drivers always cross the same 20-foot strip near the property line to swing wide into Oak Harbor’s loading bays, although individual wheel paths vary slightly depending on truck size and driver skill.

If Oak Harbor sues to establish a prescriptive easement, which is the strongest argument that the route is sufficiently definite?

Explanation. A prescriptive easement must be shown by a definite and certain line of travel for the five-year period, but slight deviations from the accustomed route do not defeat the claim. Where users consistently traverse the same corridor for the same purpose, ordinary variations caused by truck size or driver ability are not fatal. The majority approved that reasoning and rejected any requirement of identical tracks.