Crimmins v. Gould

149 Cal.App.2d 383 (1957)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

McCormick owned a tract of land in Atherton. McCormick built McCormick Lane to have access to Fair Oaks Land. McCormick owned the land on which the lane was built. The McCormick land was subdivided except for parcel 1 wherein the lane was incorporated. That land is owned by Hecker, Hans, Crimmins, Gould, and Baxter who was given an oral right of way. In 1931, McCormick deeded the lane to Crimmins in fee. Crimmins deeded his property and the lane to his wife. D extended McCormick lane and also built Burns Ave. (see page 1084 Casner 3rd). D also owned one of the lots with an easement of ingress and egress to and from McCormick lane. A sign is posted on McCormick Lane showing that it is McCormick Lane. At times, Dead End signs and Not a Through Street signs were posted. Parcels 1 and 2 were planted with pear and walnut trees and they used the Lane as a means of ingress and egress in their orchard operations. Use other than during the peak harvest was once a week. Crimmins had a quarrel with the orchard and put up signs indicating that it was a private road and permission was needed to pass. The signs were torn down and thrown away. Since 1948 no taxes were assessed to P for the Lane. Crimmins offered to deed the Lane to Atherton but that was refused. The road was resurfaced and the owners of parcel 1 refused to pay; the road was then maintained by McCormick, Gibb's predecessor, Baxter, and Crimmins. Various public uses were made of the lane from 1935 to 1952. When notified of the connection to the subdivision, Crimmins opposed it. The trial court ruled that the lane had never become public and that the lane was subject to an easement as a private means of ingress and egress from lot 1 and that no easement or right of way existed from lot 2. The court ruled that D had not acquired an easement or right of way appurtenant to lot 2 and that the easement to lot 1 has been extinguished and thereupon enjoined D from using it.