Is there an easement? That is what matters
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.
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.
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.
Any sympathy I might have had for the development evaporated when, as the article states, they filed a complaint with the county against Margulies for work he was doing on his own land.
1.He and his predecessors in interest used the alleged easement area in a manner which was adverse and hostile to the owner of the property;
2.The use which he made of the alleged easement area was continuous and uninterrupted for more than five years; and
3.The owner of the property had actual notice of the adverse use, or the adverse use was so open, unequivocal, obvious, and notorious that the owner must have known about it.
We can't have those smelly poors traipsing around near our exclusive properties, now can we?