California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

Gray v. McCormick, G039738

In a property matter, judgment entitling defendants to make any use of an easement area that does not interfere with plaintiffs' use of the same is reversed in part, and affirmed in part as modified where: 1) the exclusive use of a defined area of the servient tenement by the owners of the dominant tenement was not prohibited under state law; 2) the language of the instrument by which the easement was created clearly expressed an intention that the use of the easement be exclusive to the owners; and 3) a question remained as to whether there was any conceivable use of the subsurface of, or the air rights above, the easement area that would be consistent with the intended exclusive use of the surface of the easement area.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 10/23/2008
  • Published 10/23/2008

Judges

Court

  • California Court of Appeal

Counsel

  • For Appellees:
  • Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth and Donald J. Hamman, Newport Beach, for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants., Cunningham & Treadwell, Francis J. Cunningham III, Woodland Hills, and David S. Bartelstone, Pasadena, for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents.
Copied to clipboard