BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1927
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 2, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
AB 1927 (Jones) - As Amended: April 9, 2012
SUBJECT : Easements: maintenance: arbitration.
SUMMARY : Authorizes the owner of a right-of-way easement to
seek a judgment from a small claims court determining
proportionate liability of each owner for maintenance costs if
the amount of controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of
the small claims court. Specifically, this bill :
1)Permits disputes calling for the apportionment of easement
maintenance costs to be resolved in small claims court if the
amount in controversy is within the small claims
jurisdictional threshold amounts.
2)Provides, that if an application is not made in small claims
court, then the application may be for the appointment of an
impartial arbitrator to apportion the cost.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the owner of an easement in the nature of a private
right-of-way, or of land to which the easement is attached, to
maintain the easement in repair.
2)Provides that if an easement is owned by more than one person,
or is attached to parcels of land under different ownership,
the costs of maintaining the easement shall be shared by each
owner pursuant to the terms of any agreement entered into by
the owners. Specifies that if any owner who is a party to the
agreement refuses to contribute to the costs, an action for
specific performance may be brought against that owner in a
court of competent jurisdiction by the other owners, either
jointly or severally.
3)Authorizes, in the absence of an agreement, any owner of an
easement, or land to which the easement is attached, to apply
to any court where the right-of-way is located and that has
jurisdiction over the amount in controversy, for the
appointment of an impartial arbitrator to apportion the costs.
AB 1927
Page 2
4)Specifies that the above provisions do not apply to
rights-of-way held or used by railroad common carriers subject
to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission.
5)Provides that small claims courts have jurisdiction for an
action brought by a natural person, if the amount of the
demand does not exceed $10,000.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Existing law requires the owner of a right-of-way easement, or
in the land to which the easement attaches, to maintain the
easement. Where the easement is owned by more than one
person, all owners are expected to contribute to the costs of
maintaining the easement. Sometimes the distribution of these
costs is provided for by agreement between the owners, and if
one owner refuses to pay his or her share, the other owners
can bring an action for specific performance of the agreement.
Where there is no prior agreement, however, existing law makes
a presumption that the costs of maintenance shall be shared in
proportion to the use made by each owner. In the latter case,
where there is no agreement, existing law authorizes an owner
of the easement to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction
for the appointment of an impartial arbitrator to apportion
the costs. Although the language of existing law is
permissive, some courts have interpreted this to mean that the
owner must apply to superior court for the appointment of an
arbitrator, and therefore an owner is precluded from seeking a
judgment directly from a small claims court, even if the
amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional limit of
the small claims court. Because the arbitrator's award is
non-binding, any owner who is unhappy with the award may ask
the court to enter a judgment determining the proportional
liability of each owner.
2)According to the author, however, in many cases these disputes
involve relatively small amounts that could be determined more
efficiently and cost effectively by a small claims court. For
example, the author notes that a $500 dispute might require
owners to file in superior court (which is more expensive) and
then go through an arbitration process with a court-appointed
arbitrator. If any owner disagrees with the arbitrator's
AB 1927
Page 3
award, that owner can petition the superior court to determine
the proportional liability of each owner. The author believes
that in appropriate cases, it would make more sense for an
owner or owners to seek a judgment directly from the small
claims court - especially given that, even after going through
the arbitration process, the court may be called upon to
determine the proportional share of each owner anyway. This
bill is sponsored by the Conference of California Bar
Associations (CCBA).
3)The intent of this bill is to give an owner the option of
seeking a judgment from small claims court where the amount in
controversy is within the jurisdiction of the small claims
court, but where the amount in controversy is more than the
limits of the small claims court, this bill would preserve the
option of applying to superior court for the appointment of an
impartial arbitrator to apportion the costs.
4)This bill would make it clear that, for amounts that are
within the jurisdiction of the small claims court, an owner
may seek a judgment (as opposed to the appointment of an
arbitrator) from a small claims court. However, this bill
does not require an owner to file in small claims court.
Regardless of the amount in controversy, if the owner elects
not to file in small claims court, he or she may still apply
to superior court for the appointment of an impartial
arbitrator, and the case will only go to trial for a judgment
if a party rejects the arbitrator's determination. It should
also be stressed that the change made by this bill only
applies where co-owners have not entered into a prior
agreement on apportionment of the costs. Where there is an
agreement, the law will be unchanged - if an owner fails to
pay his or her share, then the other owners, jointly or
severally, may bring an action for specific performance in any
court of competent jurisdiction.
5)Support arguments : According to the sponsor, the Conference
of California Bar Associations, this bill will make it much
less expensive and time-consuming for the owner of an easement
to recover maintenance costs from all owners who are liable
for those costs.
Opposition arguments : None on file.
6)This bill was heard in the Judiciary Committee on April 10,
AB 1927
Page 4
2012, and passed with a 10-0 vote on the consent calendar.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Conference of California Bar Associations �SPONSOR]
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958