## Facts

- Two adjacent industrial parcels in Colton, California were involved: Dieterich’s truck sales and repair facility and a neighboring truck stop property owned by Brown and leased long-term to J.S. & J. Services, Inc. (Terminal Station).
- Dieterich operated a truck repair business serving large commercial vehicles.
- Since 1967, trucks traveling to Dieterich’s service bays regularly crossed a strip of the neighboring truck stop parcel as an access route.
- Brown had leased the truck stop parcel to Terminal Station for 49 years; Terminal Station held exclusive possession during the lease term.
- Environmental compliance work required Terminal Station to install underground storage tanks, and the proposed configuration would place a barrier in the area Dieterich used for access, effectively blocking the route.
- Dieterich claimed it had acquired a prescriptive easement over the access route based on long, open use.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that Dieterich’s use of the access route was open, notorious, continuous, and adverse under a claim of right for the statutory period, establishing a prescriptive easement against the tenant’s possessory interest.
2. Whether a prescriptive easement can, during a tenant’s exclusive possession, be acquired against and bind the landlord’s reversionary interest.

## Decision

- The judgment quieting a prescriptive easement was affirmed as to Terminal Station (the tenant).
- The judgment was reversed as to Brown (the landlord).
- The court held Dieterich established a prescriptive easement burdening the tenant’s leasehold interest because the tenant, as possessor, could have objected to or interrupted the use.
- The court held no prescriptive easement could run against the landlord’s reversion while the tenant remained in exclusive possession because the landlord lacked a present right and ability to exclude or interrupt the use.

## Legal Principles

- A prescriptive easement requires open, notorious, continuous use that is adverse under a claim of right for the statutory period.
- Prescription runs against the interest of the party in possession who has the present power to stop the adverse use.
- A landlord’s reversionary interest is not burdened by prescription during a lease term when the tenant has exclusive possession and the landlord lacks a present right of entry sufficient to interrupt the use.
- An easement established by prescription during a lease may bind the tenant’s leasehold without binding the landlord’s future estate.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a prescriptive easement for truck access over the portion of the leased parcel as against the tenant in possession, but held the easement could not burden the landlord’s reversionary interest while the tenant’s exclusive possession deprived the landlord of a present ability to interrupt the use.


Dieterich Int’l Truck Sales, Inc. v. J.S. & J. Servs., Inc., 3 Cal. App. 4th 1601, 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)