Lichty v. Sickels

In Lichty v. Sickels (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 696, the Court of Appeal held that the statute of limitations does not apply to an action for an easement by necessity based on the strong public "policy of freeing up land for beneficial use." (Id. at p. 703.) But the court warned the lackadaisical property owner, "'Of course, the party in possession runs the risk that the doctrine of laches will bar his action to quiet title if his delay in bringing action has prejudiced the claimant.'" (Ibid.) In conclusion, the court emphasized, "Nothing we say, of course, affects any assertions pertaining to issues such as the creation or continued existence of the easement by necessity, or laches , that Sickles may seek to establish factually at a trial." (Id. at p. 704.)