Ditzian v. Unger

Facts: A property owner uses a pathway on their neighbor’s noncoastal property to access a nearby state park for a period of greater than five years. The neighbor obstructs the owner’s access to the path.

Claim:  The owner seeks an easement for use of the pathway, claiming the path is subject to an implied easement since the owner has used it for more than five years.

Counter claim: The neighbor claims the owner may not obtain an easement since continuous public use of the pathway on noncoastal property does not impliedly dedicate the path for public use.

Holding: A California court of appeals holds the owner may obtain an easement to use the pathway since the use of the pathway is not public and has been ongoing for a period of more than five years. [Ditzian v. Unger (January 24, 2019) _CA1st_]

Read the case text.

Related article:

Does an owner dedicate their noncoastal property to the public through implication when the public openly uses it for greater than five years?