Posted on 09/12/2018 9:34:16 AM PDT by BenLurkin
The trail for decades has been a shortcut used by hikers and equestrians traveling between the wealthy ranches of Hidden Valley and the miles of dirt paths that traverse the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.
In recent years, however, it has become a battleground between neighbors in an escalating spat pitting public access against private property rights.
… David Margulies, 52, a Hidden Valley resident, said he was on horseback in late 2016 when a man warned him that the path was the private property of Sherwood Development Co., a real estate company owned by the billionaire chief executive of Dole Food Co., 95-year-old David Murdock.
According to Margulies, the man said he had no right to be there.
Soon after that encounter, Margulies was the subject of an illegal grading complaint filed with Ventura County related to trail work on paths on his property linking to those on Sherwood Development property.
In April, Margulies filed a lawsuit in Ventura County Superior Court against Sherwood Development, alleging the company has been discouraging public use of the trail as part of an effort to “expedite the development process” and increase the exclusivity and value of the properties it seeks along the hillsides.
The trail is visible in aerial photos taken in 1947 — nearly four decades before the community of Lake Sherwood was developed. Given its history, Margulies argues, hikers and horseback riders have what’s known as a prescriptive right to traverse it even though it is on private property.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Is there an easement? That is what matters
Near as I can tell from the article, there is no recorded easement, but there is a claim of an easement by use (or some such thing)
Oh here’s something I care about.
If this is public or some easement or agreement gives public access, then it needs to be maintained. Tired of hearing about private owners, giving access in trade for tax breaks, road or trail improvements, then closing it off. This is also a problem on public lands, leased for grazing, then fenced and attempted to be closed to public, which is wrong and not part of the grazing rights. STOP CLOSING OFF OR BLOCKING ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS.
That would be the simplest solution, barring that this will go to trial. The judge will most likely side with the public and rule based upon historic use and photographic evidence.
At least that’s what happened in my o e abd only prescriptive rights case that I was involved in.
Hard to prove
both parties need to agree to such an easement and would need to be recorded to be legal and undisputed
Had a neighbor try to do that with me, he even convinced the town I live in of it, I had to get an attorney who explained the law to the those dunderheads and I won. Cost me money, while my neighbor got free use of the township attorneys and zoning officials, nice right? I pay taxes and paid for the lawyers who were fighting me while I had to pay for my own lawyer. Freedom.
IANAL, but I think they have a case. The pathway was not maintained exclusively - public access was granted for at least seventy year.
IANAL, but we do have common law in the US, one way or another.
> agreement
IANAL, but I doubt that written agreements are needed for such a case of the owners NOT prohibiting access for maybe 100 years or more.
Limousine Liberals don’t like seeing those “other” people.
Malibu Oceanfront Mansion Owners have issues with Public Access to the Beaches in front of them.
A big Hollywood Producer guy (Geffen I think) fenced off the Beach Access trail next to his Malibu House for years. He fought the CA Coastal Commission with his expensive Lawyers until he decided to sell the House.
Beach Access for me, but not for Thee.
IANL?
“Is there an easement? That is what matters”
Read tge article and do your homework ...
> easement by use
IANAL, but issues like this split conservatives.
conservative: private property ownership
conservative: respect for very long standing western principles and practice that predate the US
I Am Not A Lawyer
Sounds like a prescriptive easement to me.
Wonder if the county’s trails map shows the route?
With that argument, construction of the Trans-Continental railroad should have been stopped.
According to the article, no easement
But that does not mean one does not exist.
Tax maps would help as well. If the land owner is paying taxes, the land is on his deed, and no easement, it is his property, period
The developer even offered alternative means and was willing to deed it to the trail system, but were not good enough for the freeloaders.
Looks like they are trying to use a ‘prescriptive’ easement, which is used in extreme cases, such as land locked properties. But this sounds like it is being used for convenience because the public access to the public property is farther away. That is not what prescriptive easements are used for. They are used for necessity, not convenience.
The property owner is being reasonable here while the freeloaders, of course just want more free stuff
It’s been a long time since my real estate classes but I think the term is Adverse Possession.
If someone owns a store with a parking lot and people have used that parking lot for years to drive between two adjacent apartment complexes, the owner gives up the right to put up a fence to keep them from using the lot as a shortcut.
Different jurisdictions can rule differently on the time but usual examples are 3-20 years.
The path in question should fall into adverse possession because it has been used, in an unrestricted fashion, since at least 1947.
If the owners can prove they gated it even one day a year since that time, they could have a case against the public possession.
In some states if a piece of property has been used by someone for 7 years or more it becomes theirs. in this case the publics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.