Expert Witness Testimony Regarding Rights of Way and Easements

Expert Witness Experience:

County of Sonoma v. Buckland; Union Pacific Railroad, et al, Sonoma County Superior Court Case No. SCV-228377.  This Eminent Domain action concerns acquisition of the final segment of 20 miles of unused railroad right of way to complete a 15 year pedestrian / bicycle rail/ trail project throughout Western Sonoma County, CA.

The UP Railroad was demanding a high 6 figure dollar amount for a one half mile segment that had not been quitclaimed by Southern Pacific Railroad, due to an error. After consultation with us the county counsel asked UP what the highest and best use was: the railroad co. said “A railroad” and their demand fell apart. They quitclaimed it to the county for $25,000.

For reference, please contact Bill Adams, Deputy County Counsel, Sonoma County Counsel’s Office 575 Administration Drive, Room 105A, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, (707) 565-2421, or e-mail him at badams1@sonoma-county.org (2005)

==========================================================

Dubray Land Services, Inc. v. Mesa Communications Group, LLC. CV-01-123-BLG-RFC. United States District Court, District of Montana, Billings Division. This breach of contract action evolved partly around the work product of Dubray’s site acquisition team.

NMI examined the job folders for each site that was acquired. Our expert opinion of the job folders were five stars! NMI wrote a lengthy opinion to the court supporting the DuBray Land Service acquisitions. The plaintiff dropped the complaint regarding quality of work.

For reference, please contact Jeff Oven of Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich P.L.L.P. 490 N. 31st Street, Suite 500, Billings, MT 59101-1288. Telephone 406-255-7313 or e-mail him at joven@crowleylaw.com (2004)

===========================================================

Below is a case that is still pending in Malibu, CA. It is in response to a request for a declaration by the court. The case revolves around understanding what the difference is between a blanket easement and one that is fully described.

Of relevance here are two types of easements: blanket easements and fully-described easements.

A blanket easement contains no specific description of the location of the easement.  Generally, a blanket easement is one that states the easement in general terms, such as, for example, describing the easement as: Lot One of Parcel Number 12345.  A blanket easement may cover an entire parcel of land, not only the specific location of a utility structure or road/driveway.  Blanket easements were often used in lieu of surveying a centerline description.

A fully described easement is one described by metes, bounds, bearings, and distances.  The description permits plotting on a map the location of the easement.

Easement No. 3 is not a blanket easement.  The 1988 Easement Deed (Exhibit G to Plaintiff’s Complaint) concerning Easement No. 3 describes an easement for ingress and egress, roadway, utilities, utilities right of way, and incidental purposes.  The legal description of Easement No. 3 describes the easement as follows:

A strip of land, 40.00 feet wide, in Section 15, Township 1 South, Range 20 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in unincorporated territory in the County of Ventura, State of California according to the official plat thereof in the District Land Office, the centerline of which is an existing dirt road.

According to the Easement Deeds relating to Easement No. 3, Easement No. 3 is in the same location as Easement No. 2.  The 1988 Easement Deed contains a centerline description, but it appears that there was no survey completed, and the easement is an easement for twenty (20) feet on each side of the centerline.

The 1997 Easement Deed (Exhibit F to the Complaint) contains a centerline description and is described by metes, bounds and bearings.  The 1997 Easement Deed describes the easement designated as “No. 4” on the plat map, which is the location of Easement No. 2.

Easement No. 3 could not be where “No. 6” is designated on the plat attached because there is no thoroughfare on that portion of Defendants’ land.  The aerial photographs of the Rocks’ property shows a road lying west of Easement No. 2 (where the Petersons claim as the location of Easement No. 3) and leading to the Rocks’ building pad, but the road does not cross the south line of the Rocks’ property.  This renders the road leading to the building pad useless to the Petersons.  As such, Easement No. 3 is really in the location of Easement No. 2, designated as “No. 4” on the plat.

Because the description of Easement No. 2 contains a centerline description described by metes, bounds,  and relating to ingress and egress, Easement No. 2 is not a blanket easement and was meant to clarify the 1988 deed location of Easement No. 3.  Easement No. 3 is a 40 foot easement with a centerline description, i.e., the easement is 20 feet on each side of the centerline, and merely the predecessor description of Easement No. 2 before a survey could be done.