.
Prescriptive rights have absolutely nothing to do with “adverse possession.”
They are simply the right to continue any productive use that has continued for a year or more, or were provably prevented for a year or more.
It need not have any adverse nature, and can be mutual.
They can only be prevented from ripening by a prior consensual agreement. That usually cannot be applied to the sole and necessary access to a parcel.
California specifically prohibits and nullifies any action that would “land lock” any parcel.
.
That statement defies logic. CA's judiciary and statutes treat both with substantially the same requirements, with minor procedural variations. They are different, of course, but only in the sense that the former may provide the right to use another’s property for a particular purpose and the latter may provide a fee title to another’s property.
I added AP to my response to view the matter in a light most favorable to The 35.
You were the first on this thread to refer to prescriptive rights and my view is that the right is not applicable. It appears this buyer simply bought the real estate interests of the HOA (the common areas), which the previous owners no longer control.
I disagree with much of the remainder of your response, but that is what lawsuits are about.
This, however, is interesting:
California specifically prohibits and nullifies any action that would “land lock” any parcel.
It has been decades since I was involved with CA real estate development and while your statement is essentially true, I seriously doubt that principle is applicable here as well.
The 35 did not create a new parcel, but rather by their actions sold (albeit involuntary) a contiguous parcel in which they held an interest. Almost certainly, the new owner will be sure to avoid any “landlocked” element by granting access for a reasonable consideration to offset the costs of management, maintenance, security, insurance, taxes, etc. Such rights, obligations and liabilities would certainly have been a bargained-for element with any other form of conveyance.
(Would enjoy reading the written opinions of the real estate attorneys who consulted the buyer in this matter.)
It has been interesting, you can have the last word.