King v. Biagini
This case involves cross-actions to quiet title in an easement dispute between adjoining landowners -- plaintiff and cross-defendant Arthur E. King (owner of the alleged servient tenement)[1] versus defendant and cross-complainant Zora M. Biagini (owner of the alleged dominant tenement). In a bench trial, the trial court ruled the easement for ingress/egress was extinguished as a result of merger. Specifically, the court ruled that merger extinguished an adjoining easement across a contiguous parcel, which had connected the subject easement to the road. Thus, the subject easement no longer connected to anything.
Biagini, acting in propria persona, appeals, arguing merger was not pleaded and did not occur.[2] King did not cross-appeal from the trial court’s rejection of his alternate theories that the easement was extinguished by abandonment or prescriptive nonuse.
We conclude Biagini fails to meet her burden as appellant to show reversible error, and therefore affirm the judgment.[3]
Comments on King v. Biagini