Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-06-2024
Case Style:
Lisa Hastings v. Abraham Kevorkina
Case Number: EC046909
Judge: John Kralik
Court: Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Pro Se
Description:
Los Angeles, California real property lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued over easement rights on a private road in Altadena, California.
The properties on Colman Street were subdivided in the 1950's, with the northern lots burdened by easements for the benefit of other parcels on the street. Appellant's grant deed reflects a 30-foot easement for ingress and egress for use in common with others.
The conflict escalated in November 2010, when respondent contacted the Los Angeles County Fire Department to complain about parking at the street's entrance. This led to the implementation of a fire lane on the south side of Colman Street, prohibiting appellant from parking in front of his property. As the trial court noted in its statement of decision: "the County's attempts to impose a fire lane on Colman Street, a process initiated by [respondent's] complaints, provoked an angry reaction from [appellant] and precipitated the bitter personal and legal disputes between [respondent] and [appellant], which have taken on the character of a long-running feud."
Appellant engaged in various acts, including parking in the fire lane, removing fire lane signs, and painting over fire lane markings. These actions, coupled with allegations of vandalism, harassment, and trespassing, exacerbated the conflict between the parties.
The conflict progressed and on January 29, 2016, respondent filed her initial lawsuit against appellant and his wife, claiming they had entered her property and destroyed the fire lane sign and markings she had installed. Appellant filed a cross-complaint on July 21, 2016, seeking injunctive relief and to quiet title in the easement claimed on appellant's property. Respondent filed a second lawsuit on July 3, 2017, seeking to quiet title, to enjoin encroachments, and to cancel a written instrument recorded by appellant and his wife. Respondent then filed a supplemental complaint on March 25, 2019, seeking reformation or cancellation of the instrument, declaratory relief, damages for slander of title, and a permanent injunction.
The legal proceedings involved multiple motions, including an anti-SLAPP motion by appellant, which was denied on July 8, 2016. Demurrers to the first and third causes of action in appellant's cross-complaint were sustained without leave to amend on October 7, 2016. A preliminary injunction prohibiting appellant from parking on the easement or any part of the fire lane was issued on October 28, 2016. Reconsideration of this injunction was sought by appellant, and relief was denied on December 30, 2016. Sanctions of $5,140 were imposed against appellant for bringing three untimely discovery motions on November 27, 2019.
In the first lawsuit, the remaining causes of action in appellant's cross-complaint-the second cause of action for prescriptive easement and the fourth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress-were resolved by the grant of summary adjudication in favor of respondent on February 7, 2018. At the same hearing, summary adjudication was granted in favor of respondent on her cause of action for trespass.
The two cases were eventually consolidated for trial. Following a 12-day bench trial, the court issued a 54-page statement of decision and judgment largely in respondent's favor on June 17, 2020. The court found appellant could use the 30-foot easement for ingress and egress, upheld the validity of the fire lane, and granted injunctive relief barring appellant from parking on Colman Street in violation of the fire lane or in front of respondent's property.
Subsequent motions resulted in the denial of appellant's motion for new trial on March 1, 2021. Appellant's motion to tax costs was granted in part and denied in part on April 23, 2021.
Respondent's motion for attorney fees was partially granted on July 30, 2021, and she was awarded $82,153.75 in fees.
* * *
"To establish trespass, respondent is required to show (1) she owned or controlled the property; (2) appellant intentionally entered the property; (3) respondent gave no permission for the entry; and (4) respondent was harmed. (Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 262.)..."
Hastings v. Kevorkian, B312056 (Cal. App. Nov 06, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: