Does a written expression of intent not to create an easement do not constitute a relinquishing of a right of way?

We agree with plaintiffs this evidence does not measure up to the expression of intent not to create an easement found in County of Los Angeles v. Bartlett, supra, 203 Cal.App.2d 523, 21 Cal.Rptr. 776. There the common grantor in its original deed provided it did " 'not hereby grant, bargain, sell or convey any right of way, privilege, easement or right whatsoever in' " its remaining property. (Id., at p. 528, 21 Cal.Rptr. 776.)

No such written expression relinquishing a claim of easement existed in Daywalt v. Walker, supra, 217 Cal.App.2d 669, 31 Cal.Rptr. 899, however. There the court [181 Cal.App.3d 371] relied on parol evidence showing "the actual understanding and intent of the parties was to exclude any right of way over the land retained by [the grantor]." (Id., at p. 675, 31 Cal.Rptr. 899.) Significantly, the court also noted no easement by necessity was justified across the common grantor's retained property, because if the claimant obtained an easement, it still would not connect to a public road and provide access. (Id., at pp. 675-676, 31 Cal.Rptr. 899.) Thus, in circumstances negativing the presumption the common owner intended to utilize the granted property for access to a landlocked parcel, a finding of no easement of necessity was affirmed.