I have litigated easements and adverse possession, from both sides, both for and against. If you had a complaint served on you, you need to respond immediately, and properly. There is a lot of strategy with such cases. Please send an email to my office to set up a time for a consult.

Best,

Daniel Bakondi, Esq.

danielbakondi@yahoo.com

415-450-0424

The Law Office of Daniel Bakondi, APLC

870 Market Street, Suite 1161

San Francisco CA 94102

http://www.danielbakondi.com

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication may contain confidential information, privileged information, or attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient or received this message in error, any use or distribution of this message is strictly prohibited and unlawful. Please notify the sender immediately, and delete this message. No attorney-client nor confidential relationship is created through this communication. Nothing communicated or provided constitutes legal advice nor a legal opinion unless it so specifies and written agreement for attorney services has been entered into. Attorney licensed in California only. Your issue may be time sensitive and may result in loss of rights if you do not act in time. Thank you.

The key facts missing in your fact statement are who owns the fence and where it is located, and what is the purpose stated in the grant of the easement over lot 3. It sounds like it may be your fence since you mention repairing it. If so, that is a big hole in their adverse posession claim. If they or their predecessors built the fence, however, I'm not sure how you get around the adverse posession claim. The problem is that crossing the property line to maintain the fence is not very likely to constitute a use of an access easement to the public road. Now if you had accessed their side of the fence by using the easement, that would be another story. The same is true for the abandonment issue. Maintaining the fence actually cuts in favor of abandonment, since not many people maintain a fence that blocks an easement they want to keep. Your best bet on the abandonment cause of action is an 887.070 filing. I'm not sure what to say about the adverse posession without more facts and a review of the title documents. I have over twenty years of real estate law experience, including six years as a vice president and associate general counsel for Fidelity National Financial, parent of Chicago and Fidelity National Title Companies, among others. So this kind of case is right up my alley. I maintain facilities in Sacramento and would be happy to meet with you for a no-obligation initial consultation. Give me a call or send me an email if you would like to arrange that.

First of all, Lot 2 is not landlocked because it is adjacent to Lot 1. Lot 1 has legal access. Lot 1 and 2 are owned by the same owner, so Lot 2 has legal access. (Magna Enterprises, Inc. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (4th Dist. 2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 122.) [An owner of property cannot claim an easement across his own property, nor would he need one. (Civ. Code §§ 805, 811 subd. (1); Popovich v. O’Neal (5th Dist. 1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 553, 557.)]

The conditions necessary to etsablish that an easement is abandoned is set forth in Civil Code section 887.050. Adverse possession does not factor into this determination. You do not provide any factual information to determine whether Civil Code section 887.050 would be met by your neighbor in your case.

Finally, the notice mentioned in Civil Code section 887.070 is coupled as a condition of dismissal of the action, not grounds for dismissal of the action.

I strongly urge you to speak to a real estate attorney familiar with easement law, before you get in over your head. A judge is going to be much harsher with you than I have here.