Worrel v. Thorwaldon
Filed 8/4/06 Worrel v. Thorwaldon 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| BRADLEY WORREL et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-Defendants and Appellants, v. STEVEN THORWALDSON et al., Defendants, Cross-Complainants and Respondents. | E037981 (Super.Ct.No. RIC 374507) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas H. Cahraman, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Lee & Kent; Moldo, Davidson Fraioli Seror & Sestanovich and O. Andrew Wheaton for Plaintiffs, Cross-Defendants and Appellants.
Law Offices of Hall & Bailey, John L. Bailey and Therese Bailey-Nelson for
Defendants, Cross-Complainants and Respondents.
1. Introduction
Plaintiffs Bradley Worrel and Carol Worrel and defendants Steven Thorwaldson and Nanette Thorwaldson owned adjacent parcels. The Thorwaldsons had a road easement over the Worrels' property. The Worrels claimed that the easement had been extinguished by adverse possession based on a prior owner's use of the property. The Worrels filed a complaint against the Thorwaldsons for declaratory relief, quiet title, and adverse possession. The Thorwaldsons filed a cross-complaint for declaratory relief, quiet title, and injunctive relief. Based on the evidence presented at trial, including the prior owner's testimony that his minimal use of the property was not intended to interfere with the easement, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Thorwaldsons on both the complaint and cross-complaint.
On appeal, the Worrels claim the trial court erred in finding that they had failed to establish the elements of adverse possession. The Worrels also claim the court should have denied affirmative relief on the cross-complaint based on the applicable statute of limitations and equitable principles. Because substantial evidence supports the court's factual findings and conclusions, we reject the Worrels' claims and affirm the judgment.
2. Factual and Procedural History
In the 1970's, Harriet Stanley acquired two adjacent parcels of land located at 15205 Lake Mathews Drive and 22700 Goldfield Road in Perris, California. Stanley and her family lived in the Goldfield property and accessed it by using a dirt road along the northern border of the Lake Mathews property. Stanley also pastured her horses on the Lake Mathews property. In the early 1980's, Stanley's husband constructed a gate at the northeast end of the dirt road facing Lake Mathews Drive.[1]
In 1995, Stanley sold the Lake Matthew property, which consisted of 4.77 acres of land, to Todd Rowntree (hereafter Todd Rowntree). Both orally and in writing, Stanley specifically reserved her right to a 30-foot road easement and the right to convey the easement to others.
Todd Rowntree purchased the property for his brother Tim Rowntree (hereafter Tim Rowntree or Rowntree) and his family. Tim Rowntree improved the property by building a mobile home and establishing a new driveway entrance from Lake Mathews Drive. Because of the new driveway, Rowntree no longer used the road easement. At one point, however, Rowntree replaced the dilapidated gate at Lake Mathews Drive with a new pole gate. On the gate was a sign that read, â€
