Felgenhauer v. Soni

California Court of Appeal
121 Cal. App. 4th 445, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 135 (2004)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To establish a prescriptive easement, the 'claim of right' element does not require the claimant to have a subjective belief in their legal right to use the property; it merely requires that the property was used without the owner's permission.

Facts:

In 1971, Jerry and Kim Felgenhauer purchased a restaurant property adjacent to a parking lot owned by a bank.
Beginning in 1974, deliveries were consistently made to the restaurant by crossing over the bank's parking lot, and the Felgenhauers never sought the bank's permission for this use.
The Felgenhauers leased the restaurant to various tenants, including James Enloe, who began operating it in 1984.
Enloe testified that he did not believe he had a legal right to use the bank's property for deliveries.
At some point, the bank manager informed Enloe of plans to build a fence, and Enloe successfully requested that a gate be installed to allow continued access for deliveries.
Deliveries across the parking lot continued through successive tenants.
In 1998, Ken and Jennifer Soni purchased the bank's property, including the parking lot.
In 1999, the Sonis informed the Felgenhauers' tenant that they intended to cut off access to the restaurant from the parking lot.

Procedural Posture:

Jerry and Kim Felgenhauer filed an action in trial court against Ken and Jennifer Soni to quiet title to prescriptive easements.
A jury returned special findings that established a prescriptive easement for deliveries in favor of the Felgenhauers.
The Sonis, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
The Felgenhauers are the respondents in the appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the 'claim of right' element for establishing a prescriptive easement require that the claimant have a subjective belief that they are legally entitled to use the property?

Opinions:

Majority - Gilbert, P. J.

No. To establish a claim of right for a prescriptive easement, the claimant is not required to believe they are legally entitled to use the property. The element of 'claim of right' is satisfied by demonstrating that the property was used without the owner's permission. The court reasoned that the term 'claim of right,' borrowed from the law of adverse possession, has caused confusion by suggesting a required state of mind. Instead, it is synonymous with 'hostile' use, which simply means the use was not permissive and occurred without the owner's express consent through a lease or license. Enloe's testimony that he lacked a belief in his right to use the lot is irrelevant; the critical fact is that the use was made without the bank's permission. The jury could reasonably conclude the five-year prescriptive period had been satisfied before the fence and gate were constructed, thereby establishing the easement.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the 'claim of right' element for prescriptive easements in California by firmly rejecting a subjective standard in favor of an objective one. It significantly lowers the burden for claimants, who no longer need to prove a particular state of mind or belief in their legal right, which is often difficult to evidence. Instead, the focus shifts entirely to the objective acts of use and the absence of the owner's permission. This ruling makes it easier to establish prescriptive easements and aligns the 'claim of right' element directly with the concept of hostile, non-permissive use, thereby simplifying the analysis for future cases.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Felgenhauer v. Soni (2004)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"