Attempt $1$

In Progress

NEXT UP: Submit Assignment

Smith v$.$ Pettigrew

The Avilas owned a large tract of land in Montecito. They subdivided it$,$ and in $1971$ sold some one$-$acre parcels, retaining $34$ acres themselves. In the deeds to the one$-$acre parcels, the Avilas reserved an easement to provide access to their $34$ acres. The deeds were recorded. This included the deed to parcel C$,$ which they sold to Mr$.$ Pettigrew.

Pettigrew moved onto parcel C$.$ In $1972,$ he stretched a heavy rope attached to two poles across the access easement where it entered the dominant tenement $($the $34-$acre tract$).$ He hung up a sign forbidding use of the easement road, but the sign disappeared after one week. Later, he erected a barrier made of a four$-$by$-$fours and some two$-$by$-$fours in the middle of the road. Pettigrew took that barrier down in $1973,$ and began using the road as a storage area. From $1973$ to $1979,$ he stored the walls of a dismantled cabin there; from $1975$ to $1977,$ he stored a $20-$foot trailer there.

Meanwhile, the Avilas sold the $34-$acre dominant tenement, and after that the property changed hands a number of times. The access easement was not mentioned in any of these deeds. In $1978,$ the Smiths purchased the $34$ acre parcel. Again, the deed did not refer to the easement.

There were other access routes onto the $34-$acre property besides the easement across Pettigrew's lot. None of the people who owned the $34$ acres before the Smiths attempted to use the easement. The Smiths, however, thought that the easement would be more convenient than the other routes. In $1979,$ they asked Pettigrew to move the cabin walls and other things that were blocking the easement road. He refused, and the Smiths sued to establish their right to use the easement. Did the Smiths have that right? Why or why not?