Cal.Sup.Ct.;
S230104

The California Supreme Court affirmed a court of appeal decision. The court held that the nonrecreational use of roadways on neighbors' property did not give rise to an implied dedication.

Jaime Scher and Jane McAllister owned land in Topanga Canyon. They wanted to access their property by driving on two roadways that crossed their neighbors' land, rather than taking other, less convenient routes. Their neighbors blocked their access with gates. Scher and McAllister sued, seeking a declaration that their neighbors (or their neighbors' predecessors) had “acquiesced to the dedication” of the routes as public roadways. The trial court agreed, finding that the neighbors or their predecessors had impliedly offered to dedicate the roadways to public use. The court found that an offer to dedicate the roadways was “implied in fact,” based on several “Declarations and Grants of Easements,” as well as certain maps prepared by the federal government, which previously owned the land at issue. The court found further that an offer to dedicate was “implied in law,” because the public had used the roadways “for more than the period of prescription” of five years. These offers of dedication, the court opined, had been “accepted by the public's use of the property.” The court found that Civil Code §1009, which limits the circumstances in which courts may find implied dedication of private coastal property, was inapplicable because the land at issue was not coastal property, and because §1009 “does not restrict the implied dedication of public roads for nonrecreational uses.”