Facts

Defendant Faith Presbyterian Church owned a parcel of land at the corner of Montezuma and Campanile drive in San Diego, adjacent to San Diego State University. Defendant maintained a sanctuary, church offices, a preschool and a parking lot on the property. There was a steep embankment to the southeast of the property where a dirt path wound through the bamboo, shrubs, and various other plants on the embankment for several years, leading from the parking lot to neighboring properties. The defendant did not fence that area of the property and never tried to block access to the path. The embankment was of little use to defendant, and was not visible from most of defendant's property. Several large bushes and trees covered the entrance to the path, rendering it very hard to see.

Although neighbors used the path, their use was barely noticeable, and never interfered with the church's activities. The defendant paved the parking lot in the 1960s, and restricted its use by the public. The lot was primarily used by church members or by the preschool, but defendant allowed college students to park in the lot during the week when the lot was not needed for church activities in exchange for a fee. The defendant would have unauthorized vehicles towed.

Plaintiff William Ceravolo owned a property located below defendant's property on Tierra Baja Way. The plaintiff occasionally hosted flamenco parties at his property for a large number of guests. The defendant allowed plaintiff's guests to use the parking lot to unload supplies, and overnight parking. Many of plaintiff's guests utilized the dirt path to access plaintiff's property. The defendant charged plaintiff or his guests a discounted parking fee for permission to use the parking lot. The plaintiff would fill out a form for use of the lot, or call a member of the church to make parking arrangements. The plaintiff was only permitted to use the lot when the lot was not needed for church activities. The defendant would sometimes have cars towed that were parking in fire lanes, did not display parking passes, or remained on the lot on Sunday mornings. During the 1980s, the plaintiff erected a "no trespassing" sign at the base of the path due to problems with trespassers to his property.

In 1992, the plaintiff constructed a fence on defendant's property at the top of the path, near defendant's parking lot. The plaintiff gave defendant a key to the gate in the fence. Defendant did not object to the construction of the fence at the time. At some point in time, plaintiff also placed stepping stones, concrete, carpet, railing and lighting along the dirt path to delineate it. The defendant did not object to this either.

In 2002, the defendant began contemplating a remodeling project that would require alteration to the embankment. The defendant and plaintiff discussed the proposed project and signed a memorandum of understanding.

In 2003, the project began, and plaintiff and defendant signed a new agreement. The plaintiff had a survey prepared to determine the property line between his property and defendant's property. The plaintiff learned that a retaining wall, chicken coop, and fence that plaintiff had thought were on his property were actually located on defendant's property. After the remodeling project was completed, defendant became concerned about its liability for the lack of code compliance by the improvements plaintiff had made on its property and requested that plaintiff remove them. The plaintiff refused and filed suit claiming that he was entitled to a prescriptive easement on defendant's property.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff argued that he was entitled to a prescriptive easement due to his improvements and access to defendant's property.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that it had either approved of plaintiff's uses or was unaware of plaintiff's uses of its property, which barred plaintiff's claim of presumptive easement. It cross-claimed to quiet title.

Result

Equitable Award. The trial court ruled that plaintiff had not acquired an easement over defendant's property and could not use defendant's property without defendant's express permission.

Other Information

FILING DATE: June 24, 2005.