Recently in Property Law Category

In plaintiff-trust's suit against defendant-Exxon claiming contamination of its water supply and other allegations, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) trial court's order substituting Cook Endeavors for the Trust as plaintiff in this action is affirmed; and 2) peremptory writ of mandate is issued directing the superior court to vacate its order granting Exxon's motion for summary adjudication on plaintiff's punitive damages claim.     

Read Nelson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. C059615 [HTML]

Read Nelson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. C059615 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Cantil-Sakauye

Counsel
For Appellant:   Baron & Budd, Scott Summy, Celeste A. Evangelisti, John L. Yates, Carla M. Burke; Stevens, O'Connell & Jacobs, Charles J. Stevens, David A. Cheit, Bradley A. Benbrook; Sher & Leff, Victor M. Sher, Richard M. Franco

For Appellee:  Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Jeffrey J. Parker, Whitney Jones Roy, Karin Dougan Vogel; Morgan Lewis & Bockius, David L. Schrader

In plaintiff's suit against the defendant-Mobile Park for refusing to permit the installation of a new mobile home in its mobile home park to replace an older one that plaintiff had inherited, trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit is affirmed where: 1) the complaint fails to state a cause of action for statutory violation; 2) the complaint fails to state a tort cause of action for interference with contract; 3) the complaint fails to state a contract cause of action; and 4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.   

Read Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC, No. H033464 [HTML]

Read Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC, No. H033464 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge MacAdams

Counsel
For Appellant:    Greene, Chauvel, Descalso, & Minoletti, Paul G. Minoletti, Susan J. Bayerd

For Appellee: Law Office of Anthony C. Rodriguez, Anthony C. Rodriguez

In plaintiff's suit against the defendant for sparking a brush fire that caused a significant damage to his ranch, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendant forfeited any error in the jury's verdict form; 2) jury's award of restoration damages in excess of the property's value was supported by substantial evidence and was not excessive as a matter of law; 3) the undisputed evidence established that plaintiff did not reside on the property at the time of the trespass, and his storage of personal property there was not the type of "occupancy" that would justify his recovery of annoyance and discomfort damages; 4) tree damage caused by a negligently spread fire is wrongful injury to trees caused by a trespass subject to mandatory doubling pursuant to Civil Code section 3346, notwithstanding the general provision governing fire damage in Health and Safety Code section 13007; and 5) substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that plaintiff intended to use the property for raising livestock, entitling him to an award of attorney's fees under Code of Civ. Proc. section 1021.9. 

Read Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc., No. B205735 [HTML]

Read Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc., No. B205735 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Mosk

Counsel
For Appellant:    Horvitz & Levy, Lisa J. Perrochet, Robert H. Wright; Lyddan Law Group and Jeffrey D. Lyddan

For Appellee: Law Offices of Douglas G. Gray, Douglas G. Gray; Cotkin & Collins, Robert G. Wilson and Terry L. Kesinger

In plaintiff's suit against defendants for using its employees to drill its water wells without a required license, trial court's judgment against plaintiff after sustaining defendants' demurrer is reversed where the trial court erred in concluding that Water Code section 13750.5 does not apply to public entities such as defendant.  

Read California Groundwater Ass'n v. Semitrophic Water Storage Dist., No. F056823 [HTML]

Read California Groundwater Ass'n v. Semitrophic Water Storage Dist., No. F056823 [PDF]

Filed November 9, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Vartabedian

Counsel

For Appellant:  Lanahan & Reilley, Scott L. Steever and Keith T. Uland

For Appellee:  Law Offices of Young Wooldridge, Ernest Conant, Scott K. Kuney, Phillip Hall and Alan Doud

Trial court's judgment in favor of defendant-Mobilehome Park that it could remove a mobilehome owned by plaintiffs' deceased parents at plaintiffs' expense is affirmed as the plaintiffs forfeited their statutory right under the Mobilehome Residency Law to sell their parents' mobilehouse at the Park.     

Read Simandle v. Vista de Santa Barbara, No. B209735 [PDF]

Read Simandle v. Vista de Santa Barbara, No. B209735 [HTML]

Filed November 4, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Yegan

Counsel

For Appellant:  Martin Cohen & Associates and Dennis Shea

For Appellee:  Robert S. Coldren, Robert G. Williamson, Jr., Daniel T. Rudderow; Hart, King & Coldren, PC.

In plaintiff's case against the state for breach of a lease, trial court's postjudgment order denying defendant's request to vacate that portion of a judgment awarding postjudgment interest against state at a rate of 10 percent is reversed and remanded as it gives effect to that portion of a judgment awarding postjudgment interest which is claimed to be void.  Furthermore, the award in excess of 7 percent interest is void and thus subject to collateral attack because it constitutes relief which the court had no power to grant.     

Read Read 311 S. Spring St. Co. v. Dep't. of Gen. Serv., No. B212165 [PDF]

Read 311 S. Spring St. Co. v. Dep't. of Gen. Serv., No. B212165 [HTML]

Filed October 28, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Mallano

Counsel

For Appellant:  Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, James M. Schiavenza, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Joel A. Davis, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Donna M. Dean, Deputy Attorney General

For Appellee:  Gilchrist & Rutter, Frank Gooch III, Phillipa L. Altmann; Gilbert Dreyfuss, Inc., and Gilbert Dreyfuss

In an eminent domain proceeding, judgment against Caltrans on defendants' goodwill claim and an order awarding litigation expenses to defendants are affirmed as the claim for goodwill damages is not preempted by the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, and the award of litigation expense is supported by substantial evidence. 

Read People ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Acosta, No. C059064 [PDF]

Read People ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Acosta, No. C059064 [HTML]

Filed October 26, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Hull

Counsel

For Appellant:  Ronald W. Beals, Thomas C. Fellenz, Joann Georgallis, and Harjinder K. Chima

For Appellee:  Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally, Kevin D. Lally, John P. Makin, and Alice M. Peiler; Heiser Law Corporation and Jeffrey D. Heiser

In plaintiff's petition to determine priority of the liens from a foreclosure sale of property, trial court's determination that the remaining funds were properly allocated to the other two lien holders is affirmed as the court did not err in relying on Bratcher v. Buckner (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1177, a judicial foreclosure case, in a non-judicial foreclosure case such as the present case.   

Read Wells Fargo Bank v. Neilsen, No. A122626 [PDF]

Read Wells Fargo Bank v. Neilsen, No. A122626 [HTML]

Filed October 22, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Haerle

Counsel

For Appellant:  Benjamin R. Levinson

For Appellee: Gary L. Barr, Mark S. Blackman, Alpert, Barr & Grant, APLC; Edward A. Treder, Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP; Robert J. Curtis, Kristen C. Lu, Curtis Law Group

In plaintiffs' dispute over the sale of a house purchased from defendant, trial court's decision to vacate the arbitrator's award in favor of the plaintiffs is affirmed and plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate denied  as the arbitrator excluded material evidence that substantially prejudiced defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2   

Read Burlage v. Sup. Ct., No. B211431

Filed October 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Gilbert

Counsel

For Appellant:  Hoefflin & Associates, ALC, Richard M. Hoefflin, Jason M. Burrows; Lascher & Lascher, Wendy Cole Lascher

For Real Party in Interest: Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, John A. Taylor, Jr.; Lang, Hanigan & Carvalho, LLP, John D. Lang; Smith Law Firm, Craig R. Smith

In plaintiffs' action against various defendants including a building contractor involved in the construction of their retirement home, the judgment of the trial court is modified as the corporation that acted as the building contractor on the project violated the California's licensure requirements and, based on that violation, the homeowners are entitled under Business and Professions Code section 7031(b) to recover all compensation paid to the contractor for the unlicensed work. Furthermore, as a matter of statutory construction, the recovery authorized by section 7031(b) may not be reduced by an unlicensed contractor's claim of offset for materials and services provided in connection with the unlicensed work.   

Read White v. Cridlebaugh, No. F053843 [PDF]

Read White v. Cridlebaugh, No. F053843 [HTML]

Filed October 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Dawson

Counsel

For Appellant:  Ana M. Soares

For Appellee:  No Appearance