## Facts

- The Temescal Gardens Subdivision was created by a 1924 recorded subdivision map showing streets, including a 40‑foot right‑of‑way labeled Diplomat Avenue.
- The disputed land was a 20‑foot‑wide strip corresponding to the western half of Diplomat Avenue; that portion was never improved or used as a street/right‑of‑way.
- John and Leona Kepler purchased their subdivision property in 1980, including the western 20 feet of the Diplomat Avenue right‑of‑way.
- Tract Development Services, Inc. later purchased property in the same subdivision, including land immediately east of the Keplers and the eastern 20 feet of Diplomat Avenue.
- At an earlier point in the chain of title, both the Keplers’ parcel and the parcel later acquired by Tract Development were commonly owned (first by A.J. Davis, later conveyed to Elvin and Ruth Downs).
- During the Downs’ ownership, a gated fence existed across Diplomat Avenue; there was no showing the gate was locked or that subdivision owners were definitively excluded.
- After Tract Development acquired its property and sought to use Diplomat Avenue for access, the Keplers erected a fence down the middle of Diplomat Avenue along the boundary between the western and eastern halves.
- Tract Development sued for declaratory relief establishing an easement over the Keplers’ 20‑foot strip and for damages for interference with that easement.
- The trial court entered judgment for Tract Development, declared an easement over the Keplers’ portion of Diplomat Avenue, and awarded $12,550 in damages; the Keplers appealed.

## Issues

1. Did Tract Development acquire an easement to use the platted Diplomat Avenue right‑of‑way when it purchased its subdivision property (including in light of arguments that the purchase was not “with reference to” the subdivision map or that an earlier deed excepted the easement)?
2. Was the easement extinguished by merger based on earlier common ownership of the parcels now held by the Keplers and Tract Development?
3. Was the easement abandoned through long nonuse and the existence of fencing/gates across the platted street?
4. Was the easement terminated by prescription based on allegedly hostile, continuous obstruction or exclusion by the Keplers or their predecessors?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in full.
- Tract Development acquired an appurtenant easement to use the platted street area shown on the recorded subdivision map as a subdivision street/right‑of‑way, enforceable against the owner of the western half.
- The Keplers failed to establish extinguishment by merger; the record did not show the kind of complete unity, in the same right and extent, that would eliminate the easement, and the history of ownership and conveyancing did not show an extinguishment of the subdivision street rights.
- The Keplers failed to prove abandonment because nonuse and the presence of fencing/gates did not amount to clear, affirmative conduct showing an intent to relinquish the easement.
- The Keplers failed to prove prescriptive termination because the evidence did not establish open, notorious, hostile, and continuous obstruction for the statutory period; the Downs’ gate/fence was not shown to be a locked or unequivocal exclusion of subdivision owners’ rights.
- The declaratory relief recognizing the easement and the $12,550 damages award for interference were upheld.

## Legal Principles

- When subdivision lots are conveyed with reference to a recorded subdivision map that shows streets, purchasers and their successors generally receive private, appurtenant easement rights to use the mapped streets for access, even if a particular segment has not been opened or improved.
- An easement is not extinguished by merger unless there is complete unity of ownership of the dominant and servient interests in the same person, in the same right and to the same extent, under circumstances showing the easement cannot or does not continue.
- Abandonment of an easement requires conduct that clearly indicates intent to give up the right; nonuse and ambiguous acts (such as a gate not shown to be locked or consistently exclusionary) are not enough.
- Termination of an easement by prescription requires proof of open, notorious, hostile, and continuous conduct inconsistent with the easement for the statutory period; equivocal fencing or gating that does not plainly exclude easement users will not meet that standard.
- A party who interferes with an established easement may be liable for damages caused by the obstruction.

## Conclusion

Tract Development, as a purchaser of property in a recorded subdivision, obtained an appurtenant easement to use the platted Diplomat Avenue right‑of‑way across the Keplers’ western half, and the Keplers did not prove the easement had been eliminated by merger, abandonment, or prescription; the Court of Appeal therefore affirmed the judgment declaring the easement and awarding damages for interference.


Tract Development Services, Inc. v. Kepler, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1374 (1988)