Romero v. Brooktrails Township Commuity Services Dist. CA1/5

Filed 4/15/14 Romero v. Brooktrails Township Commuity Services Dist. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

CLAY O. ROMERO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A138488 v. BROOKTRAILS TOWNSHIP (Mendocino County COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CVG-11-59396) et al., Defendants and Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION* Clay O. Romero and his wife, Melanie Romero, owners of a piece of real property known as Parcel A-1 in Brooktrails Vacation Village Subdivision, filed an action in Mendocino County Superior Court alleging they possessed an easement on a piece of real property (Parcel A-2) owned by Brooktrails Township Community Services District (BCSD). BCSD moved for summary judgment, and the superior court granted its motion. The Romeros then appealed from the resulting judgment. In 2007, the Romeros purchased Parcel A-1, which is located in Brooktrails Vacation Village Subdivision. The Romeros’ property has frontage on a public street called Maize Way. Their property also abuts Parcel A-2, which is owned by BCSD. The Romeros wished to subdivide Parcel A-1 and believed it required an access route wider

* We resolve this case by a Memorandum Opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 8.1.

1

than Maize Way for the subdivision to be accomplished. Thus, in their action, the Romeros sought the right to use a path known as Meadowlark Trail across Parcel A-2 as access to their property. The Romeros’ first amended complaint alleged they had acquired an easement across Parcel A-2. Although the precise legal theory upon which the claim was based is not entirely clear from the complaint, the Romeros alleged that “[t]he basis of [their] claim is a prescriptive Easement by implication, necessity and equity[.]” They allegedly acquired their right to the easement “based upon historic adverse usage, by virtue of open, notorious, and adverse use of the Easement, under claim of right, for access and ingress and egress to and from Parcel A-1 . . . for an uninterrupted and continuous period of approximately forty-one (41) years.” In opposing BCSD’s motion for summary judgment, the Romeros clarified their theories somewhat, arguing they possessed: (1) an implied easement based on prior use, (2) an easement by necessity because their parcel is landlocked, and (3) an equitable easement under the doctrine of relative hardships. 1 Relying chiefly on Clay Romero’s deposition testimony and the Romeros’ responses to discovery, BCSD’s motion for summary judgment argued the undisputed facts demonstrated the Romeros could not prove any of the theories on which their claim of an easement was based. The Romeros filed an opposition, but the trial court sustained virtually all of BCSD’s objections to the evidence the Romeros submitted in support of