BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1927
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1927 (Jones)
As Amended April 9, 2012
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 10-0 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Wagner, Atkins, |Ayes:|Smyth, Alejo, Bradford, |
| |Dickinson, Gorell, Huber, | |Campos, Davis, Gordon, |
| |Jones, Monning, | |Hueso, Knight, Norby |
| |Wieckowski, Bonnie | | |
| |Lowenthal | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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. If the application is not made in small
claims, then the owner may, consistent with existing law, seek
the appointment of an impartial arbitrator in superior court.
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
AB 1927
Page 2
appointment of an impartial arbitrator to apportion the costs.
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 : 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.
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
AB 1927
Page 3
arbitrator. If any owner disagrees with the arbitrator's award,
that owner can force 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 required to determine the proportional
share of each owner anyway.
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0003491