Thorstrom v. Thorstrom
2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 845, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1406, 127 Cal. Rptr. 3d 526 (2011)
Sections
Rule of Law:
An implied easement is created when a property owner conveys a portion of their land to another, provided there was a prior existing use that was obvious and permanent, and the easement is reasonably necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the conveyed land. However, the scope of such an easement is limited to the uses reasonably contemplated by the parties at the time of conveyance and cannot be expanded to unreasonably burden the servient tenement or exclude the servient owner from using their own property.
Facts:
- Evelyn Sallinen owned two adjacent parcels of land: a larger 7.2-acre parcel (later transferred to son Wayne) and a smaller 1.37-acre parcel (later transferred to son Alan).
- A well drilled on the smaller parcel in 1969 eventually fell into disrepair, while an older hand-dug well on the larger parcel was unreliable.
- In 1980, Evelyn paid for a new well to be drilled on the larger parcel to ensure a steady water supply, but the electrical controls were installed on the smaller parcel where she lived to save costs.
- During her lifetime, Evelyn used the 1980 well for her domestic needs, while Wayne also connected his home on the larger parcel to the 1980 well for daily use.
- Evelyn died in 2003, and her trust distributed the larger parcel to Wayne and the smaller parcel to Alan without an express written easement regarding water rights.
- Upon taking possession of the smaller parcel, Alan disconnected Wayne's access to the 1980 well and installed a 2,500-gallon storage tank.
- Alan diverted nearly all water from the 1980 well to fill his tank and water extensive landscaping, leaving Wayne with insufficient and dirty water for his home.
- Wayne attempted to restore access, but Alan harassed the workers and claimed exclusive ownership of the water.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Wayne and Arlyne) filed a complaint against defendants (Alan and Linda) in the superior court to quiet title, for declaratory and injunctive relief, and for trespass.
- The trial court conducted a bench trial and issued a judgment finding that defendants had an implied easement for the continued and unrestricted use of the well.
- The trial court further ordered that plaintiffs were restricted to using the well on their own property only for emergency purposes during droughts or breakdowns.
- Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's 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 an implied easement for water use arise when a parcel is severed from a larger estate containing a well that historically served the severed parcel, and if so, does the scope of that easement permit the dominant tenement owner to divert substantially all water to the exclusion of the servient tenement owner?
Opinions:
Majority - Dondero
Yes, regarding the existence of the easement, but no, regarding the exclusive scope granted by the lower court. The court affirmed that an implied easement existed because the elements of Civil Code section 1104 were met: the parcels were previously under common ownership, Evelyn's use of the well was obvious and permanent, and the easement was reasonably necessary given the failure of the well on the defendants' parcel. However, the court reasoned that the scope of an implied easement is measured by the intent of the parties and the historic use at the time of transfer. While some increase in use for normal residential needs is foreseeable, the defendants' installation of a massive storage tank and total appropriation of the water imposed an unreasonable burden on the servient tenement. The court held that implied easements are generally non-exclusive and the servient owner (Wayne) retains the right to use his own land and water alongside the easement holder.
Analysis:
This case serves as a critical clarification on the limits of implied easements in property law. While it reinforces the low bar for establishing 'reasonable necessity' (it doesn't have to be the only possible way to get water, just reasonably necessary), its primary significance lies in the restriction of scope. The decision prevents easement holders from unilaterally expanding their usage to the detriment of the property owner. It establishes that 'reasonable use' is a two-way street; the dominant tenant cannot expand their rights to the point of destroying the servient tenant's enjoyment of their own fee simple property. This precedent protects property owners from having their resources completely siphoned off by neighbors relying on unwritten, implied rights.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Thorstrom v. Thorstrom (2011)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"