Is adverse possession continuous or continuous?

The issue in Masin was whether adverse possession was continuous from 1972 or began in 1975. The court quoted from Zimmer v. Dykstra (1974) 39 [222 Cal.App.3d 1086] Cal.App.3d 422, 432, 114 Cal.Rptr. 380: " ' "An interruption of an adverse use results only from an act of one against whom the use is adverse. The act may consist in either, (1) bringing and pursuing to judgment legal proceedings in which the use is determined to be without legal justification, or (2) producing a cessation of the use without the aid of legal proceedings." [Citation.]' " (Masin v. La Marche, supra, 136 Cal.App.3d at p. 694, 186 Cal.Rptr. 619, italics added.) The court affirmed the trial court's finding that plaintiffs' access easement had been extinguished by adverse possession, where neither plaintiffs "nor their predecessors in interest" acted to stop defendants' adverse use. (Id. at pp. 694-695, 186 Cal.Rptr. 619.) Since plaintiffs did not acquire the property until 1978, it was evidently assumed the change in ownership did not interrupt or wipe out the prescriptive period.