Prescriptive Easement Over Real Property.

In 1960, a prior owner of real property [Blackacre] poured a concrete driveway encroaching on the neighboring property [Whiteacre] approximately 8 inches by 90 feet. The present owner of Blackacre bought the home in 1994. In 2009, the trust which now owns Whiteacre constructed a metal guardrail over the prescriptive strip. An action to quiet title followed. While the owners of Whiteacre prevailed in the trial court on a motion for summary judgment, the appellate court reversed, because the owners of Whiteacre did not prove the owners of Blackacre did not have a prescriptive easement [open and notorious use for five years which was continuous and uninterrupted, hostile to the true owner and under a claim of right]. The owners of Whiteacre argued they and their predecessors had not been in continuous possession of Whiteacre for five years, so they did not have to prove the elements of a prescriptive easement. The appellate court stated: “California law does not require the actual owners of the adversely used land to have been in continuous possession for five years.” King v. Wu (Cal. App. Second, Div. 7; August 14, 2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1211.