Reported / Citable
Background
Montecito Country Club holds a recorded easement “for cart path and greenskeeper truck purposes” running east-west across the southern portion of a residential property in Santa Barbara County. Kevin and Jeannette Root bought the house immediately north of holes 13 and 14 in 2015, without knowledge of the easement. A large oleander hedge and chain-link fence separated their backyard from the course. Around the time the Roots moved in, the country club redesigned the holes and rerouted the cart path away from the property, planting native vegetation in the surrounding area.
Over time the hedge overgrew, encroaching close to the Roots’ pool and harboring rats. The Roots asked the country club to relocate the hedge and landscape the area; the club declined. The Roots’ title insurer offered to pay $50,000 to release the easement, which the country club rejected. In 2020, the Roots discussed plant choices with the new groundskeeper but, according to the trial court, never received approval to remove the hedge or alter the easement area. The Roots then proceeded to remove the hedge, install landscaping and irrigation, and build new improvements within the easement.
The country club sued to quiet title and for an injunction. After a court trial, the Santa Barbara County Superior Court found that the recorded easement was valid and had not been abandoned, that the country club had acquired a prescriptive easement to maintain a boundary hedge and accessory landscaping in the easement area, and that the Roots had to remove their unauthorized improvements. The Roots appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six, in a partially published opinion, affirmed. On abandonment, the court reaffirmed long-standing California law that abandonment of a recorded easement requires both nonuse and an intention to abandon, and that mere nonuse for a period of time is not sufficient. The country club’s decision to reroute the cart path in 2016 reflected a redesign of the golf course, not an intent to give up the easement. The country club continued to use the easement area for hedge maintenance, irrigation, and access, and it twice rejected requests to release the easement, including a $50,000 cash offer. Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that there was no intent to abandon.
On prescription, the court held that the country club had openly, notoriously, continuously, and adversely maintained the boundary hedge and accessory landscaping within the easement area for the prescriptive period. The Roots’ argument that the use was permissive failed because the country club’s maintenance occurred over the prior owner’s objections at times and continued without permission after the Roots’ objections. The expanded scope of the easement was limited to maintaining a hedge in the same general location and accessory landscaping consistent with the historical use.
The court also rejected the Roots’ challenges to the trial court’s injunction. Read together with the judgment and the 23-page statement of decision, the injunction was sufficiently definite about which Root improvements had to be removed and what conduct was prohibited. The trial court retained discretion to modify the injunction in the future if practical enforcement issues arose.
Key Takeaways
- Recorded easements are not abandoned by mere nonuse or by changes in how the dominant tenement is operated. The owner must have an actual intent to abandon, demonstrated by clear acts.
- An express easement’s scope can be expanded by prescription to cover incidental uses, such as hedge and landscaping maintenance, that have been openly and continuously made for the prescriptive period.
- A title insurer’s buyout offer to extinguish an easement is not, by itself, evidence that the easement was abandoned by the dominant tenement owner.
- Servient tenement owners cannot self-help by removing improvements within an easement area; the proper course is litigation or negotiated release.
- Injunctions enforcing easements need only be reasonably definite when read with the judgment and statement of decision; trial courts retain authority to modify them as circumstances change.
Why It Matters
The opinion offers practical guidance for owners of golf courses, country clubs, and other recreational facilities that depend on cross-property easements over residential parcels. Even when the original use shifts, the easement holder retains powerful rights so long as it can show ongoing intent to use the easement and continuing maintenance activities. Residential owners considering improvements within an easement area should obtain a clear, written release before proceeding.
For real estate practitioners, the case is also a reminder that prescriptive expansion of an existing easement remains a viable theory in California. Hedges, landscaping, irrigation, and ancillary maintenance can become formally protected components of an easement when the use has been long-standing and adverse. Title insurers and prospective buyers should look closely at on-the-ground conditions, not just the recorded language of an easement.