MacDonald Properties, Inc. v. Bel-Air Country Club
1977 Cal. App. LEXIS 1758, 72 Cal. App. 3d 693, 140 Cal. Rptr. 367 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Continuous, open, and notorious use of an easement over a long period without the landowner’s interference creates a presumption that the use is adverse, shifting the burden to the landowner to prove the use was permissive. Separately, a building restriction may be enforced as an equitable servitude against a subsequent purchaser with notice, even if it does not technically meet the requirements for a covenant running with the land.
Facts:
- In 1936, Bel-Air Country Club and an adjacent landowner, Hilda Weber, entered into an arrangement for their mutual benefit.
- Weber needed a portion of Bel-Air's golf course property for a safer entrance to her mansion, and Bel-Air needed an easement under Weber's land to connect its fifth green and sixth tee.
- The property Bel-Air agreed to convey to Weber was actively used as the 'rough' for its sixth fairway, where misdirected golf balls landed daily.
- In a 1936 deed, Bel-Air conveyed approximately four-fifths of an acre to Weber, and the deed included building restrictions intended to prevent interference with the golf course's use of the property.
- In exchange, Weber granted Bel-Air a pedestrian tunnel easement under her property.
- From 1936 onward, Bel-Air continued to use the conveyed property as rough, with its players regularly hitting balls onto the land and entering it for retrieval.
- In 1950, plaintiff Hilton purchased the entire Weber property, including the parcel subject to the building restrictions and golf course use.
- In 1963, Hilton transferred a remainder interest in the property to plaintiff MacDonald Properties; neither Hilton nor MacDonald protested Bel-Air's use until the present lawsuit was filed.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Hilton and MacDonald Properties, Inc., filed an action in the trial court against defendant Bel-Air Country Club for declaratory relief and to quiet title.
- Bel-Air filed a cross-complaint to quiet title to a prescriptive easement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Bel-Air Country Club.
- The trial court's judgment declared that the building restrictions in the 1936 deed were valid and binding on the plaintiffs and that Bel-Air had acquired a prescriptive easement.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's summary judgment to the California Court of 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 a golf course acquire a prescriptive easement to use an adjacent owner's property as rough for errant golf balls when its use is open, notorious, and continuous for over the statutory five-year period, and the landowner has knowledge of the use but does not protest?
Opinions:
Majority - Fleming, Acting P. J.
Yes, a golf course acquires a prescriptive easement under these circumstances. Continuous use of an easement over a long period of time without the landowner’s interference is presumptive evidence of its existence and adverse nature. Bel-Air's use of the property as rough was open, notorious, and continuous for over forty years, and plaintiffs were aware of this use but never protested. This long-standing acquiescence shifts the burden to the plaintiffs to prove the use was permissive, which they failed to do. The building restrictions in the original 1936 deed, which plaintiffs had notice of, serve as powerful evidence of the parties' intent that Bel-Air should continue to use the property as rough. Furthermore, the building restrictions are independently enforceable as equitable servitudes because plaintiffs, as subsequent purchasers, took the property with notice of them, and there are no changed circumstances that would make enforcement inequitable.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle in California that long-standing, open, and unprotested use of land creates a presumption of adversity for the purpose of establishing a prescriptive easement, shifting the evidentiary burden to the servient landowner. It also establishes a novel and highly fact-specific type of easement: the right to use neighboring property as a landing zone for errant projectiles from a recreational activity. The ruling serves as a cautionary tale for landowners, emphasizing that failing to object to a continuous encroachment may result in the permanent loss of property rights. For future cases, it demonstrates that courts will look to the complete history and context of a property relationship, including related deed restrictions, to determine the parties' intent and the nature of the use.
