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 ...
Thanks. I'd never seen the acronym "IANL" and couldn't find it in Google except for Islamic Association of North London and Insurance Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. Even Urban Dictionary doesn't have it.
That would depend on the state as well
New Jersey would require 20 plus years and 20 years of proof that you paid the real estate taxes on the property. That stops the claims right there.
I know we all hate NJ on here, but when it comes to easements and adverse possession laws, it has the most strict and property owner friendly laws in the country. It is the only area where NJ is the most conservative in.
7 years is really short time frame
However, if within the time frame, the person is told he is trespassing on private property. The time frame goes away
No trespassing signs are usually sufficient by the eyes of the law in most cases.
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.
Not that simple in California.
Prescriptive rights creates a permanent legal easement.
I am sure that the prior residents argued that. With hatchets, arrows and fire, at least.
But another angle for conservatives is national security interest, not to mention national economy.
So, a pretty different case.
Are you as smart as you think you are?
> Adverse Possession
That was where I was going, at least in part.
My understanding is that judges don’t like to invoke it.
Also not sure it works with the public as suitor (as opposed to a private entity - e.g. I fenced in part of your yard 20 years ago and have maintained it and kept everyone out all those years with no objections from anyone).
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.
Wouldn’t the adverse use also have to be exclusive?
A judge is going to do what he/she feels like, in any case, whatever the law says!
I’m not sure. I just did a copy and paste job from a real estate law website.
I believe you are right.
Open and notorious use by the public of private property for a period of years probably varying from State to state.
They might have to come up with some form of an easement to keep it open to the public.
The land owners might be better of financially if it is taken by Emminent Domain as they will get compensation. -Tom
I remember it because while I was taking RE classes, there was a case similar to my example above. A new business owner lost a case where he decided to hang a chain across the side of a parking lot.
People had been using his newly acquired lot to make a shortcut from one street to a business on the next parallel street.
He lost because it had been common practice to use his lot for that purpose for more than twenty years. There were bullards and a chain there but they were never used to disrupt the traffic flow in all those years.
Another example that was adjudicated at the same time was a long used walking path that cut a 45 degree angle across a field that was located on two perpendicular streets. The owner began construction on a wall that would force people to use the sidewalk around the lot.
Zoning people ruled that he could only build the wall if it was constructive to an additional development of the property. It could not be built simply to reroute foot traffic.
The property is now built out but I don’t know if there were additional motions or actions in that case.
We can't have those smelly poors traipsing around near our exclusive properties, now can we?
Thanks for the snarky, unnecessary reply.
Many “projects” completed by eminent domain, and other means, have had nefarious roots.
National security and economy are just two reasons which could be abused as reasons to move forward.
I’m not saying the railroad is one such case, but it pays to examine each on its own merit.
Agree with you about abuse of eminent domain.
You left out an A.
Prescriptive rights must be out of a necessity
A convenience is not a necessity
Just because I cut through your lot to get to my lot because it is easier for me then going the proper legal way, doesn’t give me a right to your lot. I am trespassing.
Same thing here
I remember being told years ago by an uncle, who was not a lawyer, that Rockefeller Center would deliberately block access once a year to keep their property from becoming a right of way. In England, from whence our laws come, a public right of way that has been used for many years trumps the landowner’s rights.
You said it in a few words better than I have in three posts!
Your uncle was right.
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.