Klinck v. Perelmutter
Daniel and Mary Lou Perelmutter (defendants) appeal from a judgment granting Thomas Klinck and Peter Kratz (plaintiffs) easement rights over a portion of the Perelmutter property bordering the driveway which provides access to plaintiffs garage and house. The trial court found plaintiffs have an implied easement, a prescriptive easement, and an easement by necessity. Defendants argue the courts statement of decision is not adequate as to the last two theories. As to implied easement, defendants contend the trial court employed the wrong standard, relied upon speculative expert testimony, and lacked a legal or factual basis for its conclusion. We find no basis to reverse as to implied easement. Defendants also argue the easement awarded by the trial court amounted to a possessory interest. Court disagree. In light of our conclusion that plaintiffs proved their rights to an implied easement, Court need not and do not reach defendants arguments about the adequacy of the statement of decision and the alternative easement theories.
Comments on Klinck v. Perelmutter