By Jessica 
The Montecito Country Club easement dispute made headlines across California when Judge Donna Geck issued her decisive ruling on July 30, 2024. This Santa Barbara County case established clear boundaries for landowners about the binding power of recorded easements, even those dating back nearly five decades.
Inside the High Stakes Montecito Property Battle
The legal confrontation pitted billionaire Ty Warner’s Montecito Country Club LLC against neighbouring homeowners Kevin and Jeannette Root, whose property at 1059 Summit Road carried a 1977 reserved easement benefiting the adjacent golf course.
Court records from Case Number 21CV02227 reveal the specific actions that triggered the lawsuit:
- Removal of established vegetation within the easement area
- Construction of a new boundary hedge
- Installation of a retaining wall
- Substantial regrading of the easement land
- Importation of soil for new landscaping
The golf club’s legal team from Cappello & Noël LLP successfully argued these changes blocked the club’s reserved rights to use this area for “cart path or greenskeeper purposes” as they had for decades.
A pivotal factor in the case: the Roots proceeded without securing approval from Ty Warner, whom the court confirmed held exclusive authority to permit any alterations within the easement boundaries.
Santa Barbara Superior Court’s Decisive Ruling
The judgment from Department 4 of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court left no room for interpretation.
Judge Geck imposed a mandatory injunction with three strict requirements:
- Complete removal of all unauthorized landscaping and structures
- Full restoration of the easement area to its previous condition
- Financial responsibility for all restoration costs assigned to the Roots
The court took the unusual step of retaining jurisdiction to monitor compliance with these orders. This shows how seriously Judge Geck viewed the property rights violation.
The Santa Barbara Independent reported this outcome as a complete victory for the Montecito Country Club, reinforcing how California courts uphold legally recorded easements regardless of their age.
Critical Implications for California Property Owners
This Santa Barbara property dispute establishes several fundamental principles of California real estate law that affect homeowners throughout the state:
- Recorded easements retain full legal force regardless of age. This 47-year-old easement remained as binding as when created in 1977
- Servient estate owners (those whose land is burdened by an easement) cannot unilaterally modify the easement area without proper authorization
- California courts will exercise their authority to order complete restoration when easement rights are violated, not merely financial compensation
- The financial burden of easement violations extends beyond legal fees to include potentially substantial restoration costs
Real Case Example: The Hidden Costs of Easement Violations
A nearby Montecito case illustrates these principles in action. When Angelo Mozilo (former CEO of Countrywide Financial) purchased his property adjacent to the same Montecito Country Club, he faced a different kind of dispute. Court documents from this neighboring case show how property improvements—in his situation, noise complaints about an allegedly unpermitted “Sports Complex”—led to a temporary restraining order against the Club issued by Judge Thomas Anderle.
What makes the Root case distinct is the complete reversal required—not just stopping an activity but physically removing improvements and restoring land to its previous state.
Practical Safeguards Against Easement Litigation
Property law specialists recommend these specific protective measures for any landowner with easements affecting their property:
- Obtain professional title research beyond standard reports to identify all recorded easements
- Secure formal written permission from all authorized parties before making any changes
- Document the existing condition of easement areas with photographs and possibly surveys
- Understand the precise boundaries and permitted uses specified in the easement language
- Consult with a real estate attorney specializing in property rights before planning any work
Much like how homeowners need to check for property easement restrictions before landscaping, businesses must verify regulatory compliance before operations. Both scenarios require proper due diligence to avoid costly legal consequences.
The Root family’s experience demonstrates how easily landscaping projects can transform into costly legal battles when easement rights are overlooked.
Montecito’s History of High Profile Property Conflicts
The Warner v. Root easement dispute represents just one chapter in Montecito’s ongoing saga of property rights conflicts, which include:
- The contentious Hot Springs Trailhead access dispute, where homeowners placed boulders to block public parking, resulting in litigation between residents and Santa Barbara County
- Former Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo’s lawsuit against the same Montecito Country Club over noise from an allegedly unpermitted “Sports Complex”
- Extended legal battles over coastal access points near celebrity properties
According to the Court of Appeal decision in a related Montecito case, these conflicts stem from the unique combination of extraordinary property values, complex historical development patterns, and the concentration of both wealth and natural amenities in this exclusive community.
Essential FAQs on Easement Rights and Disputes
What exactly constitutes a legal easement?
An easement grants specific usage rights over someone else’s property. California recognizes several types of easements:
- Appurtenant easements benefit adjacent land (like the Montecito Country Club easement)
- Easements in gross benefit a specific entity rather than adjacent land
- Express easements created by written agreement (as with the 1977 document)
- Prescriptive easements established through continuous use over time
- Implied easements arising from property division
The Montecito Country Club held what the court identified as a “reserved easement” created in 1977, which functions as an appurtenant easement allowing potential cart path development across a portion of the Roots’ property.
Can long unused easements expire in California?
No. California law generally does not recognize abandonment of easements created by written instrument (like the 1977 Montecito easement) simply through non use. The Cappello & Noël legal team confirmed this principle was central to their successful argument in court.
What specific changes trigger easement violations?
Any physical alterations that potentially interfere with the easement holder’s rights can constitute violations. In the Montecito case, the regrading, wall construction, and new vegetation all created obstacles to the club’s potential future cart path development.
How do courts typically remedy easement violations?
California courts frequently issue injunctions requiring removal of encroachments and restoration of the easement area. Monetary damages may also apply if the violation caused quantifiable harm to the easement holder.
What documentation protects property owners during easement disputes?
Written permission from authorized representatives of the easement holder, professional surveys showing easement boundaries, photographs documenting conditions before any work, and all communications regarding proposed changes provide critical protection.
Property Rights Lessons from the Montecito Dispute
The Montecito Country Club easement dispute shows how ordinary landscaping decisions can transform into expensive legal conflicts when they clash with recorded property rights. The case reflects a pattern seen repeatedly in California property law: courts strictly enforce easement rights, even when doing so requires substantial restoration costs for homeowners.
For property owners throughout California, this Santa Barbara case highlights why you must fully understand every recorded restriction on your deed before undertaking even seemingly minor property improvements. The difference between a beautiful landscape enhancement and a costly legal judgment often comes down to understanding exactly where your property rights end and another’s begin.