Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Ditzian v. Unger
Cal.App. 1st Dist. (A152946) 1/24/19
The court held that plaintiffs established a prescriptive easement to a foot path over defendant's property by showing that the use had been open, notorious, continuous and adverse for an uninterrupted period of five years. Plaintiff asserted that Civil Code Section 1009 applied, which does not allow public use to ripen into a public right to continue such use in the absence of an express written irrevocable dedication. The court held that Section 1009 does not apply because plaintiffs asserted a private prescriptive easement, not a public right.