Montecito Country Club v. Root (2026): California Prescriptive Easement Ruling

A Backyard With Someone Else's Cart Path in It

Kevin and Jeannette Root bought a house immediately north of holes 13 and 14 of the Montecito Club in the fall of 2015. A recorded easement "for cart path and greenskeeper truck purposes" ran east to west across the southern part of their lot. The Roots did not know it was there.

A tall oleander hedge with a chain link fence inside it separated the Roots' backyard from the cart path and the course. A parcel map showing the property line and the club's easement had been recorded in 1978. Around the time of the purchase, the club redesigned the course, routed the cart path away from the Roots' yard, and planted native vegetation near holes 13 and 14. The oleander kept growing until it covered most of the old path and came within a few feet of the Roots' pool.

The Roots learned about the easement in 2017, when they met with the club about trimming the hedge. By 2018 they had a rat problem in it and asked to remove the hedge, plant a new one farther south along the property line, and landscape the area the old hedge and path had occupied. The club said no in writing: its owner saw no benefit in relocating the fence along the easement or in giving up the easement. The Roots' title insurer then offered the club $50,000 to release the easement. The club declined.

Three Conversations, Two Versions of Each

In 2019 and 2020 the Roots revived the project, this time with the club's head groundskeeper. What happened at those meetings became the center of the trial, because the two sides remembered them differently.

At a January 2020 meeting, the groundskeeper recalled discussing only which plants should replace the oleander. Mr. Root recalled also discussing moving the hedge south to the property line, and testified the groundskeeper was "amenable." When Mr. Root followed up in September 2020, the groundskeeper's written reply said he would need ownership's approval before anything moved.

"I need ownerships approval before we move anything."

Club groundskeeper's email to the homeowner, September 2020, as quoted in the opinion

At a September 10 meeting with the Roots' contractor, the groundskeeper remembered approving a like-for-like replacement in the existing location and saying he knew nothing about the property line. The Roots and their contractor said they had shown him the line and where they intended to plant. The new hedge went in along the property line on September 18. When the groundskeeper walked the work on September 28, he said he told the contractor the location "was wrong." The contractor denied that.

After that walk-through, the Roots built a four-foot retaining wall behind the new hedge along its entire length and raised the easement area to grade with 400 cubic yards of dirt. They acknowledged the wall and grading had not been discussed with the club. In January 2021 the club's lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter, and the club then sued to quiet title to both the recorded easement and a prescriptive easement for the hedge and landscaping.

The Published Holding: Preponderance, Not Clear and Convincing

A prescriptive easement arises from open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use, under a claim of right, for five years. Use is adverse when it happens without the owner's express or implied permission. The person claiming the easement carries the burden of proof. What had never been settled was how heavy that burden is.

Division Six had itself applied the clear and convincing standard in Grant v. Ratliff (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1304, following Brewer v. Murphy (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 928. The Sixth District questioned that line in Vieira Enterprises, Inc. v. McCoy (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1057, tracing the higher standard to a 1943 case about constructive fraud. Revisiting the issue, Division Six found Vieira persuasive and held that the correct standard is a preponderance of the evidence under Evidence Code section 115.

The court drew one line worth knowing. The clear and convincing standard still applies when someone tries to overcome the presumption that the holder of legal title owns the full beneficial title, under Evidence Code section 662. The club was not seeking title to the Roots' land, only a right to use part of it, so section 662 did not apply.

When published Court of Appeal decisions conflict, a California trial court may follow either line until the Supreme Court decides the question. In practice, a claimant in Los Angeles County can now cite Montecito and Vieira for the lower standard, and an owner will cite the earlier cases for the higher one. The standard you are held to can decide a close case.

Why the Club Did Not Have to Pay the Property Taxes

The Roots argued the judgment gave the club "complete control" of the strip, which would make it the equivalent of ownership. Under Hansen v. Sandridge Partners, L.P. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1020, a prescriptive interest that comprehensive must satisfy the elements of adverse possession, including payment of all property taxes on the land for five years under Code of Civil Procedure section 325. Few claimants can meet that element, as our analysis of Nellie Gail Ranch v. McMullin explains.

The court read the judgment differently. The trial court had described the club's rights as a nonexclusive easement to keep a boundary hedgerow and accessory landscaping. Nothing in the judgment stopped the Roots from reaching the area at the ends of the hedge, and the club conceded the Roots could open a gap in the hedge to pass through it. A right that leaves the owner with real use of the land is an easement, not an estate, so the tax requirement never applied.

How the Club Proved Decades of Adverse Use

The Roots pointed out that no one at trial could say who planted the hedge, when, or exactly where. The court held the club did not need to. Long, continuous use without interference from the landowner is presumptive evidence of a prescriptive right, and in the absence of evidence that the use was merely permissive it is enough to sustain a judgment, as the Supreme Court held in Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 564.

The evidence the court found sufficient was ordinary and documentary:

• Aerial photographsImages showing the hedge in place from 2007 through 2020.
• A longtime employeeTestimony that a tall hedge had grown there since the mid-1980s and that the club's crew maintained it.
• The recorded mapA 1978 parcel map showing the property line and the easement, which confirmed the hedge grew on the homeowners' side.
• The owners' own requestsThe Roots twice, in 2017 and 2020, asked the club for permission to remove the hedge. Asking permission is hard to square with a claim that the club's use was permissive.

The club also did not need to prove the exact year the use began. The court relied on a Los Angeles case, MacDonald Properties, Inc. v. Bel-Air Country Club (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 693, which upheld a country club's prescriptive rights to land used as part of the course for more than 40 years without a precise starting date.

The parts of the opinion that were not published

In portions not certified for publication, the court also rejected the Roots' argument that the club abandoned the recorded easement when it rerouted the cart path in 2016. Abandonment requires nonuse plus unequivocal acts showing intent never to use the easement again, and the trial court found the club kept using the area as part of the course and could reinstall the path without substantive changes. The court also upheld the injunction ordering restoration to the area's condition on September 8, 2020, finding it definite enough when read with the judgment and the 23-page statement of decision. Unpublished portions cannot be cited as precedent in California courts.

Prescriptive Easement, Adverse Possession, or Equitable Easement?

Neighbors arguing over a strip of land usually reach for the wrong doctrine first. The table shows how the main theories differ in California.

Does This Describe a Property You Own or Are Buying?

The facts in Montecito are common in hillside and golf course neighborhoods across Los Angeles County, including homes that back onto Glendale's Oakmont and Chevy Chase country clubs. Ask these questions before you plant, build, or buy:

• Is there an easement on title?Read the exceptions in your preliminary title report and pull every recorded easement and parcel map it references.
• Who has been maintaining the area?If a neighbor, an HOA, or a club has trimmed, watered, or repaired something on your side of the line for five years or more, a prescriptive claim may already exist.
• Where is the line, really?Hedges, fences, and walls rarely sit on the surveyed boundary. A licensed survey settles it before anyone builds.
• Who gave permission, and in what form?A friendly conversation with an employee is not the same as written consent from the owner who controls the easement.

How to Protect Yourself Before Moving a Hedge, Fence, or Wall

1. Pull the title documents first

   Order or reread the preliminary title report, then obtain the recorded easements and maps it lists from the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk.

2. Get a survey

   A licensed land surveyor can stake the property line and plot the easement area so the work stays where you think it is.

3. Get consent in writing from the right person

   If you need to work in an easement area, get a signed agreement from the easement holder, not a verbal okay from staff. If the change is permanent, record it.

4. Protect your own land from new claims

   Owners can post signs under Civil Code section 1008 or record a notice of consent under section 813 to keep a neighbor's use permissive.

5. Use your title insurance early

   If an easement you did not know about blocks your plans, open a claim. In Montecito, the insurer offered to buy a release before anything was built.

6. Stop if the other side objects

   Building after a written objection invites an order to tear the work out, and it undercuts any later argument that you acted in good faith.

Easement Disputes in Glendale and Los Angeles County

Easement and prescriptive easement cases over Los Angeles County property are filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, usually as quiet title, declaratory relief, and injunction claims. The records that decide them are local and public:

• Recorded easements and mapsAvailable through the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk.
• Parcel boundaries and assessmentsSearchable on the Los Angeles County Assessor, which shows how each parcel is described and taxed.
• Historical aerial imageryPhotos showing when a hedge, fence, or path first appeared often carry as much weight as testimony, as they did in Montecito.

DiJulio Law Group handles these disputes through its easement practice and its work on boundary and encroachment disputes, for owners on both sides of the line.

Six Things Montecito Settles About Prescriptive Easements

How DiJulio Law Group Approaches Easement Disputes

Easement cases are won on records: the deed or map that created the easement, the survey that locates it, aerial images that date the use, and the emails that show who asked permission and who gave it. The firm starts there, then decides whether the better path is a negotiated relocation, a recorded agreement, mediation, or a quiet title action.

The firm represents owners and claimants in Glendale, Los Angeles, and throughout Southern California through its California real estate law practice. Valeria Granata handles trial and appellate work in real estate matters.