The California Court of Appeal has upheld a trial court judgment in the Montecito Country Club Easement Dispute, affirming the rights of Montecito Country Club, LLC to a recorded easement on adjacent private property. In a decision issued on March 6, 2026, the Second Appellate District rejected arguments by property owners Kevin C. Root and Jeannette Root that the club had abandoned its easement rights and that the club failed to prove a prescriptive easement for maintaining a boundary hedge and accessory landscaping.
The ruling requires the Roots to remove hardscaping and landscaping they installed in 2020 without permission and to restore the easement area to its prior condition. This outcome resolves a multi-year conflict that began with a 2021 lawsuit filed in Santa Barbara County Superior Court and highlights practical challenges that arise when neighboring property owners interpret easement boundaries differently.
Background of the Montecito Country Club Easement Dispute
Montecito Country Club, LLC operates a private 18-hole golf course located at 920 Summit Road in Santa Barbara County. The club holds a recorded express easement, granted by deed, across the southern portion of the property now owned by the Roots. The easement grants rights for cart path and greenskeeper truck purposes.
Kevin and Jeannette Root purchased their residence in 2015. At the time of purchase, a large oleander hedge and chain-link fence separated their backyard from the golf course. Around the same period, the club undertook golf course renovations and rerouted the cart path, planting native vegetation in the former path area while retaining the recorded easement.
The Roots became aware of the easement in 2017 during discussions about hedge maintenance. In 2018, they sought permission from the club’s principal owner, Ty Warner, through representatives to remove the existing hedge (which had become a rat habitat), install a new hedge farther south along their property line, and perform landscaping within the easement area. The club declined the request. A title insurance claim by the Roots resulted in a $50,000 offer to release the easement, which the club rejected.
Events Leading to Litigation
Disagreements over communications intensified in 2020. Club personnel and the Roots offered differing accounts of discussions regarding hedge replacement. Despite the earlier denial of permission, the Roots proceeded in September 2020 to remove the original hedge, install a new hedge along their property line, construct a four-foot retaining wall, and import approximately 400 cubic yards of soil to raise the grade. The total cost of these improvements exceeded $300,000.
In January 2021, the club issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding that the Roots stop construction, remove the encroachments, and restore the area. Montecito Country Club, LLC filed suit in Santa Barbara County Superior Court on June 4, 2021 (Case No. 21CV02227). The operative first amended complaint sought quiet title to both the recorded easement and a prescriptive easement for boundary hedge maintenance and accessory landscaping, along with declaratory relief, enforcement of the easement, and injunctive relief ordering removal of the unauthorized improvements.
Trial Court Ruling
Following a bench trial in June 2024, Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Donna D. Geck issued a statement of decision on July 30, 2024, and entered judgment on August 19, 2024. The trial court found that the recorded easement remained valid and had not been abandoned by the club’s 2016 cart path rerouting. It further determined that historical usage had expanded the easement’s scope to include maintenance of a boundary hedgerow and accessory landscaping not required for cart path purposes.
Judge Geck ordered the Roots to remove the 2020 hardscaping and landscaping and restore the easement area to its condition as of September 8, 2020. The judgment also enjoined the Roots from unreasonably interfering with the club’s easement rights.
Appellate Court Decision and Key Legal Holdings
The Roots appealed to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Case No. B341762). On March 6, 2026, the appellate court affirmed the judgment in full. The opinion, certified for partial publication, addressed three main issues.
First, the court rejected the claim of abandonment. Under California law, abandonment of an easement requires clear and unequivocal acts demonstrating intent to relinquish rights. Mere nonuse or a change in the golf course layout did not meet this standard. The appellate panel concluded that the club continued to derive value from the easement area, including through the boundary hedge and landscaping that served as a buffer for the golf course.
Second, the court upheld the prescriptive easement for hedge maintenance and accessory landscaping. To establish a prescriptive easement in California, a party must show open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use under a claim of right for five years (see Civil Code principles and cases such as O’Banion v. Borba (1948) 32 Cal.2d 145). The appellate court clarified a split of authority among California appellate decisions by holding that the correct standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, not the higher clear-and-convincing standard applied in some prior cases.
The court found substantial evidence supported the elements: aerial photographs and witness testimony demonstrated long-term hedge maintenance by the club dating back to the 1980s; the Roots’ own requests for permission in 2018 and 2020 indicated the use was not permissive; and the hedge served a boundary function without granting the club exclusive fee ownership.
Third, the appellate court determined that the injunction ordering removal and restoration was sufficiently clear and not vague.
Legal Context and Practical Implications
Easements represent limited, non-possessory interests in land that allow the holder (dominant estate) to make specific use of another’s property (servient estate) without owning it outright. Express easements arise by deed or grant, as in this case. Prescriptive easements arise through long-term adverse use, similar to adverse possession but resulting in a right of use rather than title.
Quiet title actions, like the one filed here, allow courts to determine and declare the rights of parties to real property. Injunctive relief is a common remedy to prevent ongoing interference with established easement rights. The Montecito Country Club Easement Dispute illustrates how routine landscaping decisions can trigger complex litigation when they encroach on recorded rights, especially in high-value areas like Montecito where property lines and historical uses may not align perfectly with current owner expectations.
The clarification on the standard of proof for prescriptive easements carries significance beyond this dispute. By adopting the preponderance standard, the Second District aligned with certain other appellate authorities and Evidence Code section 115, potentially reducing uncertainty in future easement cases statewide. Property owners should conduct thorough title reviews and obtain written permission before altering areas that may be subject to easements.
Current Status
As of the latest public reports in late March 2026, the judgment stands affirmed. The Roots must now comply with the restoration order. Counsel for Montecito Country Club, Leila Noël of Cappello & Noël LLP, stated that “the defendants now have lost twice in court” and that it is time for the Roots to remove the encroachments and restore the property.
No further appeals or enforcement proceedings have been publicly reported.
You May Also Like: Roots Meijer Trademark Dispute: Full Legal Breakdown
Disclaimer:
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers facing similar property disputes should consult qualified California real estate counsel for advice specific to their situation. Court records and the full published opinion in Montecito Country Club, LLC v. Root et al. (2026) B341762 provide the primary authoritative sources.