prescriptive easement claim in California

2019Rey, Inc . (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 234 , 244, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 552 .) Because respondents' failure to obtain a permit before hosting Airbnb guests is not directly connected with the prescriptive easement claim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the unclean hands defense. *330 Finally, appellant argues the trial court erred in concluding the use of the property line path was adverse in light of the testimony by Romana Downie that she gave respondents' predecessors permission to use a different path across her land.

2019Rey, Inc . (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 234 , 244, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 552 .) Because respondents' failure to obtain a permit before hosting Airbnb guests is not directly connected with the prescriptive easement claim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the unclean hands defense. *330 Finally, appellant argues the trial court erred in concluding the use of the property line path was adverse in light of the testimony by Romana Downie that she gave respondents' predecessors permission to use a different path across her land.

2026To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s representation “ ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms,’ ” 6 and (2) “ ‘resulting prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” (People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 958 .) Finding no error in the challenged instruction, Porter is unable to establish either prong of ineffective assistance of counsel.

2025If, for instance, a motion in limine functions as a motion for nonsuit, the appellate court reviews an order granting that motion under the standard of review for a demurrer to the evidence, or nonsuit. ( Amtower, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1594–1595; Mechanical Contractors Assn. v. Greater Bay Area Assn. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 672, 677 .) That standard mandates that “all inferences and conflicts in the evidence be resolved in favor of the losing party and against the judgment.” (Amtower, at p. 1594.) That is, the court may grant the 3 The ruling regarding the prescriptive easement claim was

2025If, for instance, a motion in limine functions as a motion for nonsuit, the appellate court reviews an order granting that motion under the standard of review for a demurrer to the evidence, or nonsuit. ( Amtower, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1594–1595; Mechanical Contractors Assn. v. Greater Bay Area Assn. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 672, 677 .) That standard mandates that “all inferences and conflicts in the evidence be resolved in favor of the losing party and against the judgment.” (Amtower, at p. 1594.) That is, the court may grant the 3 The ruling regarding the prescriptive easement claim was

2024We agree as the “ ‘hostile’ ” use element of a prescriptive easement claim means that the “claimant’s use of the property was made without the explicit or implicit permission of the landowner.” (Aaron v. Dunham (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1244, 1252 .) A claimant cannot acquire a prescriptive easement where the landowner gives his or her consent to the claimant’s use of the property.

2024(Richmond Ramblers Motorcycle Club v. Western Title Guaranty Co. (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 747, 754 .) In Ranch at the Falls LLC v. O’Neal (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 155 , for example, the Second District affirmed the trial 25 court’s judgment declaring the plaintiff did not have a prescriptive easement over certain roadways in part because the plaintiff could not establish hostile use, as she was entitled to use the roadways pursuant to an express easement.

2024(Richmond Ramblers Motorcycle Club v. Western Title Guaranty Co. (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 747, 754 .) In Ranch at the Falls LLC v. O’Neal (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 155 , for example, the Second District affirmed the trial 25 court’s judgment declaring the plaintiff did not have a prescriptive easement over certain roadways in part because the plaintiff could not establish hostile use, as she was entitled to use the roadways pursuant to an express easement.

2022(See Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1127 .) Their testimony alone constitutes substantial evidence to support the trial court’s ruling in favor of Gondrezick on the prescriptive easement claim.

2019(See Moylan v. Dykes , supra , 181 Cal.App.3d at p. 568 , 226 Cal.Rptr. 673 ["An easement in gross, unlike an appurtenant easement, is merely a personal right to use the land of another. [Citation.] It does not pass with the land."].) Because Bustillos *746 involved a fundamentally different kind of easement, the concern in that case that the easement was similar to grant of an easement to the public is not present here. 6 Section 1009 did not prohibit the trial court from awarding the prescriptive easement in the judgment.

2019(See Moylan v. Dykes , supra , 181 Cal.App.3d at p. 568 , 226 Cal.Rptr. 673 ["An easement in gross, unlike an appurtenant easement, is merely a personal right to use the land of another. [Citation.] It does not pass with the land."].) Because Bustillos *746 involved a fundamentally different kind of easement, the concern in that case that the easement was similar to grant of an easement to the public is not present here. 6 Section 1009 did not prohibit the trial court from awarding the prescriptive easement in the judgment.

2019(See Committee to Save Beverly Highlands Homes Assn. v. Beverly Highlands Homes Assn. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247 , 1269, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 732 ["An easement appurtenant to the land is 'attached to the land of the owner of the easement, and benefits him as the owner or possessor of that land.' "].) 5 In contrast, the easement in Bustillos was plainly personal (or "in gross"), and there was nothing preventing other similarly situated members of the public from making the same prescriptive easement claim.

2019(See Committee to Save Beverly Highlands Homes Assn. v. Beverly Highlands Homes Assn. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247 , 1269, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 732 ["An easement appurtenant to the land is 'attached to the land of the owner of the easement, and benefits him as the owner or possessor of that land.' "].) 5 In contrast, the easement in Bustillos was plainly personal (or "in gross"), and there was nothing preventing other similarly situated members of the public from making the same prescriptive easement claim.

2014Monterey Mushrooms, Inc. v. Thompson (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 24, 37 .) Cases applying the clear and convincing standard in the context of prescriptive easements reflect that, as a policy matter, the law favors an owner of real property over one who seeks to burden the titleholder’s property with an easement that arises as the result of “continual trespass.” (See Grant, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1310 [although “the doctrine of prescriptive easement . . . exists to provide some social benefit[,] . . . continually trespassing on another's land is generally not . . . a socially useful activity];