Canali v. Satre
California Court of Appeal
251 Cal. Rptr. 258 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)
The Shultzes split their property into five parcels, and while they still owned both Parcel D and Parcel E, the only access to the road for either parcel ran through Parcel D's driveway; when they sold Parcel D in 1936, Parcel E became landlocked, and they sold Parcel E separately in 1941. Canali (plaintiff), Parcel E's current owner, sued the Satres (defendants), Parcel D's current owners, claiming an implied easement of necessity over their driveway; the Satres argued the claim failed because the easement had lain dormant for years and that the statute of limitations barred it, and the trial court ruled for the Satres.
Whether establishing an implied easement by necessity requires proof of the easement's prior actual use, as opposed to an easement implied from a preexisting use, which does require such proof.