Court Opinion

ID: 9613782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:19:58.74501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:31.855963
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION OF
KOBAYASHI, J., WITH WHOM KIDWELL, J., JOINS
I concur with parts I and II of the opinion of the majority. However, in my opinion the legal conclusion of the majority in part III, as stated hereinafter, is not plausible, and is unsubstantiated by any probative findings of fact by the trial court or by the record or supported by any established principle of law.
*345The majority conclude that “the United Churches have acquired an equitable right, akin to a prescriptive easement”. In my opinion, an “equitable right akin to a prescriptive easement” is a legal non-entity in property law. What is the substantive legal meaning and legal impact? The majority fail to be helpful by providing a definitive rationale and explanation. The majority further state: “Our finding is based largely on those facts which the trial court relied upon in finding adverse possession . . . .” Yet, the majority not only fail to state what findings of fact of the trial court are relied upon, but contradict themselves on their previous rejection of the same findings of fact and conclusions of law. In addition, the circumstances which rebut the presumption of a lost grant of title equally rebut a presumption of a lost grant of the equitable right.
I confess that my heart says: “Find some legal right on behalf of the United Churches!” But, regretfully, I conclude that the Unied Churches have no legal claim to the premises in question.