Prescriptive Easement Issue Arises Against Kind Neighbor

/in /by

NO GOOD DEED WILL GO UNPUNISHED, and that is certainly the case in the law of prescriptive easements.  Here, a well-meaning property owner invited her neighbor onto her property to perform some clean-up.  She quickly realized that her offer of entry put her squarely in the sights of a future easement claim.  Her posting on AVVO.COM follows, as well as my response:

“A neighbor cut a road across our property. a sheriff has given me an incident number. I think I need a lawyer… help!  We live in the forest, in SugarPine. Neighbor refuses to repair the damage. We granted access for him to clean up his needles, and now there is a 150′ Road!! Please advise what I should do next THANKS!! “

This question raises issues of trespass, prescriptive easement and others. Based upon the facts you stated here, the neighbor appears to have exceeded the rights of use you granted him; however, there could be more to this than offensive behavior. The action hints at an intention to set up prescriptive rights on your property. In order to establish a prescriptive easement in California, a claimant must take action on your property that is “open and notorious,” continuous and uninterrupted for a period of at least five (5) years (occasional use could establish the prescriptive use right for the same frequency, e.g., on weekends), adverse, and subject to a “claim of right” (i.e., not consented to). The holder of a “servient estate” (you) must have actual knowledge of the prescriptive use in order for such use to be “open and notorious.”

While situations like these appear on their surface to constitute simply rude and offensive behavior, the statutory requirements for prescriptive easements actually warrant such behavior in order for the offender to succeed(!) Thus, while the two suggestions of Mr. Martz (consulting a lawyer and writing a letter) are good initial considerations in your strategy to address the matter, the manner in which you or your attorney communicate with this claimant is of equal importance. For example, your attorney may consider whether the demand letter should be sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, in order to satisfy legal requirements and ensure you can meet your evidentiary burden. The lawyer may consider a lawsuit for quiet title or other relief. If the matter can be resolved, the attorney might consider whether a settlement agreement should be recorded to ensure that the resolution runs with the land. The bottom line is that consulting with qualified counsel here is an especially good idea because taking the “wrong” action could end up being tantamount to taking no action at all. This is particularly true in light of the 5-year statutory deadline.

Church Owner’s Charitable Business Threatened by Slanderous Statements

/in /by

“My husband is a pastor one of the members left the church to start his own church”

“He left upset and has been visiting and calling other members saying false things about my husband and telling them to join his church what can I do ? by the way I recorded our meeting I have proof that he is lying (we have a sign) but no one knows of recording. 
How can I help my husband we already lost a lot of people who believed his lies? My husband reputation is being attacked”

The issue of unfair competition is unfortunately something we see quite often in business litigation.  If the allegations are true, the claims here would not be founded upon “business fraud,” but slander and unfair competition.  The claimants posted the above issue on AVVO.COM recently, and this is how I responded:

The issue regarding the Church member communicating false information about your husband may amount to actionable slander, which would be addressed in the civil courts. You should consult with an attorney for an assessment as to whether the statements satisfy the elements of slander. If the communications include statements that your husband has committed a crime or other such behavior, the allegations would be addressed with a claim of “slander per se,” a claim which places an even higher burden upon the defendant. If there is good reason to believe the communications will continue, consider discussing injunctive relief with your attorney. There are other important torts to consider in this situation as well, to the extent that these statements may be adversely affecting the Church’s income. I have a blog coming out shortly about interference with business income.

That being said, Mr. Hirsch’s admonition about recording conversations is well taken. While a number of States are considered “one party” states, permitting recording of conversations without notice to the other party, California is not one of them. Furthermore, California’s law on the matter is not the only law that regulates recording conversations. The Federal Law also regulates the area, through the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) under Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Any person considering recording a conversation in ANY State should become well acquainted with these rules before surreptitiously recording conversations.