Contra Costa County rejected easements

User avatar
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:55 pm

Contra Costa County rejected easements

Postby dedkad » Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:32 pm

I'm looking at a map from 1948 for a 17 lot subdivision in Contra Costa County. The County rejected the road easements. Was that typical for the County back then and are they still rejecting easements? Does the County require maintenance agreements be recorded with the map, so it's clear that all lots share in the cost of maintaining the facilities?

User avatar
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:27 pm
Location: Hayward / Empire

Re: Contra Costa County rejected easements

Postby BrianSpore » Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:59 am

I am uncertain about Contra Costa County but in that time period Alameda County was rejecting easements on the maps as well. The thought behind it was the County did not want to be put on the hook if the streets and improvements were not completed. After all the improvements were completed they would accept the offer of dedication by separate instrument. It might be worth giving Jim Stein a call and ask, (925) 313-2000.

Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 11:46 am

Re: Contra Costa County rejected easements

Postby DaveRyan » Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:52 pm

In the absence of a road maintenance association or some type of CCR's, this section may come into play. See Civil Code, section 845, below. Second section(b) is most relevant.

Dave Ryan,
Arcata, Ca.

DIVISION 2. PROPERTY [654 - 1422]
( Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 13. )
( Part 2 enacted 1872. )
( Title 3 enacted 1872. )

CHAPTER 2. Obligations of Owners [840 - 848]
( Chapter 2 enacted 1872. )


(a) The owner of any easement in the nature of a private right-of-way, or of any land to which any such easement is attached, shall maintain it in repair.
(b) If the easement is owned by more than one person, or is attached to parcels of land under different ownership, the cost of maintaining it in repair shall be shared by each owner of the easement or the owners of the parcels of land, as the case may be, pursuant to the terms of any agreement entered into by the parties for that purpose. In the absence of an agreement, the cost shall be shared proportionately to the use made of the easement by each owner.
(c) If any owner refuses to perform, or fails after demand in writing to pay the owner’s proportion of the cost, an action to recover that owner’s share of the cost, or for specific performance or contribution, may be brought by the other owners, either jointly or severally. The action may be brought before, during, or after performance of the maintenance work, as follows:
(1) The action may be brought in small claims court if the amount claimed to be due as the owner’s proportion of the cost does not exceed the jurisdictional limit of the small claims court. A small claims judgment shall not affect apportionment of any future costs that are not requested in the small claims action.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1), the action shall be filed in superior court and, notwithstanding Section 1141.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the action shall be subject to judicial arbitration pursuant to Chapter 2.5 of Title 3 of Part 3 (commencing with Section 1141.10) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A superior court judgment shall not affect apportionment of any future costs that are not requested in the action, unless otherwise provided in the judgment.
(3) In the absence of an agreement addressing the maintenance of the easement, any action for specific performance or contribution shall be brought in a court in the county in which the easement is located.
(4) Nothing in this section precludes the use of any available alternative dispute resolution program to resolve actions regarding the maintenance of easements in the small claims court or the superior court.
(d) In the event that snow removal is not required under subdivision (a), or under any independent contractual or statutory duty, an agreement entered into pursuant to subdivision (b) to maintain the easement in repair shall be construed to include snow removal within the maintenance obligations of the agreement if all of the following exist:
(1) Snow removal is not expressly precluded by the terms of the agreement.
(2) Snow removal is necessary to provide access to the properties served by the easement.
(3) Snow removal is approved in advance by the property owners or their elected representatives in the same manner as provided by the agreement for repairs to the easement.
(e) This section does not apply to rights-of-way held or used by railroad common carriers subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission.
(Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 244, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2013.)

User avatar
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:55 pm

Re: Contra Costa County rejected easements

Postby dedkad » Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:39 pm

Thanks Dave and Brian.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests