Recorded Easement Not Abandoned, Expanded by Prescription

Montecito Country Club, LLC v. Root et al. (2026) 
_ Cal.App.5th _ , B 341762 (Second Appellate District, March 6, 2016)

The plaintiff country club filed suit to quiet title to an easement and asserted a prescriptive easement, while the defendants alleged that that the redesign of a golf course resulted in the abandonment of a cart path that was the subject of a recorded easement. The plaintiff and defendants had a history of meetings and communications concerning the easement area, the correct boundary and alleged encroachments.  The trial court found the easement had not been abandoned and further granted the plaintiff a prescriptive easement over an expanded area where there had been a hedge and landscaping.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court, that also ordered defendants to remove improvements that they had made to the easement area, although knowing that the issue of the easement was unresolved.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court finding that there were no unequivocal and decisive acts showing an intent to abandon the easement, and that substantial evidence supported the prescriptive easement. The Court of Appeal also addressed a split of authority regarding the proper burden of proof to establish a prescriptive easement, concluding that the correct standard of proof for a prescriptive easement is preponderance of the evidence rather than clear and convincing evidence.