Court Cases
September 20, 2011
EASEMENTS
Hill v. San Jose Family Housing Partners (PDF)
Plaintiff, who had entered into an easement agreement with defendant's predecessor to maintain a billboard on a portion of defendant's property, filed an action to prevent defendant from constructing a multi-unit building that would allegedly block the view of the billboard. Defendant asserted that the easement was unenforceable because it violated city and county building codes. The court held:
- The easement was enforceable because the property's use for advertising purposes is not illegal in and of itself. Although the instrumentality of that use, i.e., the billboard, may be illegal, that is not a bar to the enforcement of the agreement.
- The easement agreement did not specifically state that it included the right to view the billboard from the street, but the parties necessarily intended the easement to include that right since viewing the billboard by passing traffic is the purpose of the easement.
- Nevertheless, the trial court improperly denied a motion for a retrial to re-determine damages based on new evidence that the city had instituted administrative proceedings to have the billboard removed. The award of damages was based on plaintiff's expected revenue from the billboard until 2037, and such damages will be overstated if the city forces plaintiff to remove the billboard.
Cal.App. 6th Dist. (H034931) 8/23/11
