As a real estate lawyer, I am asked at least in one case a week about the rights and obligations of easement holders. If property owner A has an admission easement and route over B's land, may B install a gate? If A and B share a driveway or parking area, who can employ and who must maintain? Tin can A park or build on B's access or pipeline easement?

            It just and then happens that a new court determination discusses easements. The judges did a fine chore explaining the rules of the road when it comes to easements which I want to laissez passer on to y'all. That is the reason for this column. Commonly I don't even accept a reason.

TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT EASEMENT

            Summarizing the facts to the basics, Inzana gave the Turlock Irrigation District a 12.5-foot-wide irrigation and pipeline easement over his land so Turlock could install a waterline serving its customers. The easement was recorded, so binding on Inzana and his successors in interest.

            The easement granted "a right to construct, maintain, operate, and supercede a pipeline and related structures thereon by said improvement district… and the right to ingress and egress from the easement…" Turlock installed a waterline. Years later, Inzana planted 2,400 pistachio trees on his belongings – some in the easement surface area – many within 3 feet of the waterline. Is that legal? Can Turlock take the trees removed?

TREE REMOVAL Gild

            Turlock issued a Tree Removal Order demanding that Inzana remove any trees planted within the pipeline easement "to avoid maintenance and functioning problems in the time to come." Turlock was concerned that trees planted within the easement would grow roots which would eventually impact the pipeline'south integrity causing it to crack and leak. Inzana argued the copse did not interfere with the pipeline, the trees and pipeline were compatible.

            Turlock threatened to shut off Inzana'south h2o so he filed a petition for writ of authoritative mandamus asking to keep the pistachio trees – claiming they did non unreasonably interfere with Turlock's pipeline and easement.

            The basic issue was whether Inzana'due south copse unreasonably interfered with Turlock'southward use of its easement.

THE RIGHTS OF EASEMENT OWNERS

            The court'southward Opinion explained the rights of a country owner vis a vis the rights of an easement owner in piece of cake-to-understand language. Easy for a nerd (but cool) lawyer, hopefully understandable to you. Here is what the court wrote:

            "The rights and duties between the owner of an easement (dominant tenement) and the owner of the servient tenement (state owner)…are correlative. Each is required to respect the rights of the other. Neither party can conduct activities or place obstructions on the belongings that unreasonably interfere with the other party'southward use of the property. In this respect, in that location are no absolute rules of conduct. The responsibleness of each political party to the other and the "reasonableness" of use of the belongings depends on the nature of the easement…"

            In this example, Inzana and his trees could not unreasonably affect Turlock'south power to utilize the easement with waterline.

            "The servient (land) owner may utilise his property in whatsoever manner not inconsistent with the easement and then long as information technology does non unreasonably impede the dominant tenant (Turlock) in his rights. 'The interest of the parties must be balanced to strike a reasonable accommodation'…"

            The Court cited a instance where the land owner was entitled to install a gate along a fence on his belongings as long as he provided a fundamental to the route easement holder.

RULING FAVORS TURLOCK

            The Fifth Commune Court of Entreatment ruled for Turlock finding that the trees were planted too close to the pipeline, eventually they would crusade a maintenance issue and potentially damage the pipeline with tree roots impacting the pipeline'south integrity. Even though the pistachio trees were non causing impairment to the pipeline, the court determined in that location was a potent potential for impairment should the trees remain in place. The pistachio trees unreasonably interfered with Turlock's (dominant) correct to maintain the pipeline.

            In closing, the court wrote that Inzana "relinquished the right to mutter when he granted the (pipeline) easement." He had to yield to the rights of the easement holder and remove the trees.

Jim Porter  is an attorney with Porter Simon  licensed in California and Nevada, with offices in Truckee  and Tahoe City , California, and Reno , Nevada.  Jim's do areas include:  real estate , development , construction , business , HOA's , contracts,  personal injury , accidents , arbitration  and other transactional matters.  He may be reached at porter@portersimon.com  or world wide web.portersimon.com .

Follow u.s.a. on Twitter.Similar u.s.a. on Facebook .    ©2019

The content contained and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the writer. This blog contains content and opinions concerning the law generally, and is not intended to constitute legal advice or to create any attorney‑client relationship with the reader. The reader should consult with an attorney nearly any specific legal problems prior to embarking on whatever course of action or inaction involving legal matters. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees nearly the accurateness, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this blog and expressly disclaims liability for any errors and omissions.