Scope of Easement

Berstein v. Sebring
C098443 (Third Appellate District), December 15, 2025 

​Two neighbors owned adjacent properties, with one having a road easement across his neighbor’s land. The plaintiff filed a suit to stop the defendant, who benefited from the easement, from paving the gravel portion of the easement, arguing that paving was not necessary for reasonable use.

First, the trial court found the suit did not violate the rule against the splitting of actions and because it did not overlap with an earlier suit filed by the plaintiff involving access and use. Second, the court determined that paving the easement was not reasonably necessary for safe and convenient vehicular access and enjoined the defendant from paving.

The California Court of Appeal held that the scope of an easement does not automatically include the right to pave; such improvements must be reasonably necessary for the convenient use of the easement, as determined by the facts. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s application of the legal standard to the factual findings.