The Parties' Dispute: Factual Background

Review of the parties' initial pleadings establishes the following. The Rodriguezes wish to extend electric service to real property they own at 130 Corey Road, Aromas, in Monterey County. The Rodriguezes contacted PG&E about this extension and, in March 2002, obtained a proposal for the extension (Attachment G to the Complaint), which they executed and returned to PG&E. However, PG&E has refused to proceed until the Rodriguezes provide it with a necessary easement over an adjacent parcel, as required by Section 15 of the proposal, entitled "Land Rights."

The Rodriguezes point to a copy of an unrecorded easement (Attachment E to the Complaint) that the prior owners of the adjacent parcel (Paul and Helen Tripp) granted to PG&E in 1974 for the purpose of extending service to the Rodriguez parcel. PG&E admits that it did not record the easement. PG&E contends it had no reason to do so because, as the Rodriguezes admit, they declined to execute a service extension proposal, which PG&E prepared for them in 1974. The Rodriguezes contend they were not in the position to develop their property then and did not solicit the service extension proposal, but expected to develop at some future time.

However, the Rodriguezes contend that PG&E should have recorded the 1974 easement from the Tripps, since it was part of a bi-lateral agreement. The Rodriguezes point to a copy of a handwritten letter addressed to them, dated November 25, 1973, and signed "Helen L. Tripp" and "Paul Tripp" (Attachment C to the Complaint), which requests an easement from them. The letter also states, "We pledge to you that we will not permit the power lines to be extended beyond the boundaries of our present property, unless you should want service to your property, which we do agree to." The Rodriguezes also point to their 1973 easement to PG&E (Attachment D to the Complaint), which was recorded and which enabled PG&E to extend service to the Tripps.

Now, nearly 30 years later, the Rodriguezes wish to develop their property. The problem, however, is that the Tripps' heirs, who are the current owners of the Tripp parcel, dispute the validity of the unrecorded easement.