Macciola v. Harms CA2/6

Filed 11/15/21 Macciola v. Harms CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

FRANK MACCIOLA, as 2d Civ. No. B305868 Trustee, etc. et al., (Super. Ct. No. 17CVP-0260) (San Luis Obispo County) Plaintiffs and Respondents.

v.

DAVID HARMS et al.,

Defendants and Appellants,

Servient landowners appeal a judgment quieting title to a roadway easement and confirming plaintiffs’ right to improve the easement. We affirm. FACTS David and Jolene Harms own a parcel of property in Templeton in San Luis Obispo County. The parcel is subject to a roadway easement that plaintiffs have used to access their homes for decades. All but one of the plaintiffs, Gary Thatcher, has a recorded 40-foot-wide easement. Thatcher has no recorded easement.

Plaintiffs obtained titles to their properties between 1977 and 2011. All the plaintiffs have used the roadway openly, continuously, and without the Harms’ permission since they purchased their properties. Except for the first 130 feet from the public road, the roadway used by plaintiffs is within the recorded easement. The first 130 feet deviate from the recorded easement due to the challenging terrain. The road is unimproved. It is unsafe, particularly in winter. Paving the road will make it safer, improve drainage, and reduce maintenance. Paving will also increase the value of plaintiffs’ properties. Judgment The trial court awarded each plaintiff an easement for right of way across the Harms’ land based on prescriptive easement, equitable easement, and, except for Thatcher, on deeded easement. The trial court also granted plaintiffs the right to improve or construct improvements on their respective access easements described above, such as drainage improvements, grading, paving, installing guard rails, and the like, which are reasonably required to make use, maintenance, and repair of such easements safer and more convenient. DISCUSSION I Prescriptive Easement The Harms appear to contend that the finding of prescriptive easement is not supported by substantial evidence. The substantial evidence rule requires that we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party, not the losing