Smith v. Miholancan
Filed 8/4/06 Smith v. Miholancan CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| DAVID I. SMITH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STEVE MIHOLANCAN et al., Defendants and Respondents. | E038289 (Super.Ct.No. SCV 099775) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John P. Wade, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Shore & Wurm and John G. Wurm for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Michael J. Gilligan for Defendants and Respondents.
1. Introduction
Plaintiff David L. Smith, the owner of a landlocked parcel, filed a lawsuit to establish a right-of-way across property owned by defendants Steve Miholancan and Tina Miholancan. The trial court concluded that Smith had no right to an easement across the Miholancans' property. In challenging the trial court's decision, Smith claims that he had established the existence of an easement through at least one of the theories set forth in his complaint, including an easement by conveyance, an easement by adverse possession, an easement by implication, and an easement by necessity. Smith also claims that the court erred in failing to balance the hardships in his favor.
We conclude that the evidence supported the trial court's findings and judgment. As found by the court, the deeds did not establish an easement by conveyance. Also, substantial evidence supported the court's findings that Smith did not have a right to an easement based on any of the other theories. We affirm the judgment.
2. Factual and Procedural History
In 1996, Emmet Lawrence, Jr. and Charles E. Papolic were the owners of the following three parcels of land: parcel 1 of parcel map 340 as per map recorded in book 3, page 70; lot 57, tract No. 5088, as per plat recorded in book 74 of maps, pages 49-53; and lot 56, tract No. 5088, as per plat recorded in book 74 of maps, pages 59-53.
In that year, Lawrence and Papolic sold lot 56 to Ray and Bernice Johnson. In the deed, Lawrence and Papolic reserved an easement on lot 56 and conveyed to the Johnsons an easement across lot 57.
In 1974, Lawrence and Papolic also conveyed to Running Springs Water District (hereafter Water District) an easement across parcel 1 to construct and maintain a sewage lift station and an easement across lot 57 for ingress and egress to service the lift station. The easement began at Poplar Drive at lot 57, heads west onto lot 56 and then south into parcel 1. The Water District traversed the easement daily to service the station.
In 1993, the Johnsons' successors-in-interest sold lot 56 to Daniel and Barbara Berk. As with all the prior conveyances, the deed granted a nonexclusive easement over lot 57.
About a year later, Papolic conveyed his interest in lot 57 to Lawrence without reserving an easement. In 1999, Lawrence conveyed lot 57 to Town and Country Title Services, Inc. as trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Company. The deed of trust also did not reserve an easement. The deed was foreclosed and title passed to First Union National Bank as trustee.
On February 25, 2002, First Union National Bank conveyed lot 57 to Steve and Tina Miholancan. Before purchasing the property, the Miholancans were aware that the owner of lot 56 had a nonexclusive easement for the purpose of ingress and egress to their property. The Miholancans used their property about one or two weekends per month.
In 2002, Papolic conveyed parcel 1 to Smith. By that time, Lawrence had died and Papolic was the sole owner of parcel 1. Parcel 1 consisted of a large area of unimproved territory in San Bernardino County. Smith intended to use the lot to construct a house. At the time of his purchase, he was aware that there was no current right of access. Before the close of escrow, he approached the Miholancans and asked them for an easement over lot 57. The Miholancans ultimately refused.
On July 15, 2003, Smith filed his first amended complaint for quiet title, declaratory relief, trespass, and injunctive relief. Smith sought to establish an easement by conveyance, implication, prescription, and necessity. After a brief trial, the court denied the requested relief. Specifically, the court found that Smith had no right to an easement over lot 57 and that none of the documents conveyed an easement in favor of parcel 1.
3. Standard of Review
Smith claims the evidence failed to support the trial court's conclusion that he had not established an easement under any theory, including by conveyance, implication, prescription, and necessity.
In reviewing the trial court's legal conclusions, including its interpretation of the deeds, we independently review the documents and apply the general rules for contract interpretation. (Newmyer v. Parklands Ranch, LLC (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1070.) â€
