.png "southern california edison"){kind=logo}
Southern california edison code#
It determined the claims are barred by the threeyear statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (b)1 because the alleged nuisance is permanent rather than continuing.
Southern california edison trial#
The trial court summarily adjudicated the cross-claims in SCE’s favor. Severns cross-complained, seeking damages for nuisance, trespass and ejectment. When Severns denied access in 2008, SCE brought this action for interference with easement and declaratory relief. For nearly 80 years, the property owners allowed such access. It is undisputed SCE may use the 10-foot wide strip for utility purposes, but the parties disagree as to whether SCE has the right to access that area by traversing other portions of the property. Each conveyance also grants SCE “free access” to its electrical facilities. That strip is described by metes and bounds in the recorded conveyances. SCE maintains electrical power lines and supporting structures within a 10-foot wide strip along the eastern boundary of the property. Steven Severns owns a 15.82-acre parcel of property (the property) which is burdened by three public utility easements granted to Southern California Edison Company (SCE). STEVEN SEVERNS, Defendant, CrossComplainant and Appellant. Furthermore, because the trial court's findings established that the alleged nuisance was permanent, defendant's challenge to the summary adjudication ruling was moot.įiled 9/10/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Respondent, 2d Civ. The court also held that SCE did not forfeit its statute of limitations defense to the cross-claims. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court properly determined that SCE owns easements over the agreed-upon access routes.
Southern california edison free#
The trial court found that SCE was granted floating easements over the property to access its electrical facilities although the floating easements burdened the property at the time of creation, they did not become fixed easements until SCE and the property owners agreed on the access routes at that point, SCE became the owner of an easement of reasonable width over each agreed-upon access route and thus SCE was entitled to free access to those routes. After SCE filed suit for interference with easement and declaratory relief, defendant cross-complained, seeking damages for nuisance, trespass, and ejectment.
0 kommentar(er)
