## Facts

- Jerry and Kim Felgenhauer owned a restaurant parcel in Paso Robles, California, whose rear access connected to a public alley only by crossing a neighboring parking lot.
- The neighboring lot was owned by a bank for many years and later purchased by Ken and Jennifer Soni.
- From the restaurant’s opening in 1974, deliveries routinely came through the alley and crossed the bank’s parking lot to reach the restaurant’s back door.
- The Felgenhauers operated the restaurant initially, then leased it to others; they resumed operations in 1982, and deliveries continued across the lot.
- In 1984, the Felgenhauers sold the restaurant business (not the real property) to tenants (the Enloes), who continued receiving deliveries across the lot; Enloe testified he did not believe he had a right to use the bank’s property.
- Around 1988, the bank installed a fence and gate near the boundary; access for deliveries and related use continued through the gate.
- The Sonis acquired the former bank parcel in 1998 and, by 1999, notified the restaurant tenant that deliveries could no longer cross their property.
- The dispute also involved placing/servicing a dumpster and conditions associated with trash, which the trial court found amounted to a nuisance attributable to the Felgenhauers.

## Issues

1. Whether “claim of right” for a prescriptive easement requires the claimant’s subjective belief that they are legally entitled to use the servient land.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported a prescriptive easement for delivery access, including adversity and continuity for the statutory period.
3. Whether the evidence established a prescriptive easement relating to dumpster placement or dumpster-related use.
4. Whether the trial court properly defined the location and scope of the delivery easement despite a variable path of travel.
5. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding of nuisance liability against the Felgenhauers.

## Decision

- Affirmed the judgment recognizing a prescriptive easement across the Sonis’ property for deliveries to the restaurant’s rear door.
- Affirmed the denial of a prescriptive easement for the dumpster-related use.
- Affirmed the finding that the Felgenhauers were liable for nuisance.
- Held that “claim of right” for a prescriptive easement does not require a subjective belief of legal entitlement.

## Legal Principles

- A prescriptive easement requires use that is open and notorious, continuous and uninterrupted for five years, and adverse/hostile under claim of right.
- “Claim of right” is an objective inquiry centered on whether the use occurred without the servient owner’s permission; the user’s subjective belief about legal entitlement is not required.
- Separate uses (e.g., delivery access versus dumpster placement) must each independently satisfy prescriptive-easement elements and may yield different outcomes.
- When historical use does not establish a single fixed route, the trial court has discretion to set a reasonable location and scope for the easement consistent with the evidence and the burden on the servient estate.
- Nuisance liability may be upheld when there is substantial evidence of harmful conditions tied to the use and evidence that the responsible party knew of the conditions yet failed to correct them.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a prescriptive easement for delivery access while rejecting a dumpster-related easement and sustaining a nuisance judgment, clarifying that the “claim of right” element turns on nonpermissive use rather than a claimant’s subjective belief in a legal right.


Felgenhauer v. Soni, 121 Cal. App. 4th 445 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2004)