Trial Court Erred When It Reduced The Size Of Easement.

The configuration of a property was changed over the years after an easement across it had been granted. Based on all the changes and the present needs of present property owners, the trial court ruled “the reasonable requirements of the Barlow Parcel both presently and in the future do not require the full size and scope of the Gatchett Lane easement.” The appellate court reversed, stating:  “On appeal, Barlow asserts that no ‘recognized rule of law . . . authorized [the trial court] to terminate [his] property rights’ by reducing the size of his easement against his will, no matter what the evidence showed. We agree. Accordingly, we will reverse.” Cottonwood Duplexes v. Barlow   (Cal. App. Third Dist.;  November 13, 2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1501.