Motion for Summary Judgment and /or SAI

Tentative Ruling: Motion for Summary Judgment/SAI is DENIED, in its entirety.

The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s Objection Nos. 1 and 8-13. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection Nos. 2-7.

Objections to Molinari Declaration: OVERRULE: Nos. 2-7, SUSTAIN: No. 1. The Court SUSTAINS the Objection to the Google Map submitted by Defendants, as the map is submitted for its truth and, thus, appears to constitute hearsay. The Court OVERRULES the remaining Objections, as the documents referenced (recorded documents and permits) are not submitted for the truth of the contents therein; rather, Defendants provide these documents merely to demonstrate their existence.

Objections to Prokop Declaration: The Court SUSTAINS Objections Nos. 8-13 (all objections), as the testimony of Mr. Prokop, dealing with remodeling the second floor of Defendants’ home, is irrelevant.

RFJN: Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, of the following:

1. Indenture Deed dated August 5, 1904;

2. Indenture Deed dated November 9, 1905 and recorded on March 7, 1906;

3. Indenture Deed dated April 1, 1911 and recorded on April 10, 1911;

4. Grant Deed dated November 17, 1925 and recorded December 2, 1925;

5. Warranty Deed dated February 3, 1944 and recorded February 23, 1944;

6. Grant Deed dated April 18, 2007 and recorded July 6, 2007;

7. Grant Deed dated August 16, 2010 and recorded August 23, 2010; and

8. Grant Deed dated August 16, 2010 and recorded August 23, 2010.

Evidence Code section 452(h) provides for judicial notice of “facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. As the above referenced documents are matters of public record, not reasonably subject to dispute, and are capable of immediate and accurate determination, judicial notice is appropriate. The Court RFJN as to documents Nos. 1-8.

Additionally, however, Plaintiff requests the Court “take judicial notice of the fact that none of the recorded documents attached hereto or presented herewith show any indication that the reservation stated in the November 9, 1905 Grand Deed was ever cancelled, abandoned, sold, reconveyed or forfeited.” The Court DENIES this request, as this fact references a material issues which is disputed by the parties. More specifically, a dispute exists concerning the scope of the Easement. As taking judicial notice of the above referenced fact could suggest conflicting findings, the Court DENIES the last request.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s RFJN, as to Items Nos. 1-8; however, the remainder of the request is DENIED.

Pursuant to SSUF No. 16 and ¶3 of Plaintiff’s Declaration, despite the parties agreement that Plaintiff is the owner of Lot 23, the current owner is Michael Carden, as Trustee of the Bellagan Trust dated November 14, 2012. (See also Exhibit “14” of Carden Dec.) Given that the evidence clearly shows Plaintiff (the individual) is not the current owner of the Property, the Court cannot quiet title in favor of Plaintiff. Nor can the Court adjudicate that “Plaintiff Michael Carden, as Owner of Lot 23 owns an appurtenant easement…” Likewise, given that Plaintiff is not the owner of the relevant Lot, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate standing to prosecute the claim for Private Nuisance.

Quiet Title (Issue No. 1): Plaintiff’s first request for adjudication seeks the following determination:

Plaintiff Michael Carden, as the Owner of Lot 23, Owns an Appurtenant Easement for Walkway/Runway Purposes Over the Westerly Five Feet of Lot 24, and Defendants Norman and Ann Hoffman’s Interest in Lot 24 is Subject to Said Appurtenant Easement.

This request mirrors Plaintiff’s Second COA to Quiet Title, wherein Plaintiff requests the Court determine that “Defendants’ interest in the Servient Tenement is subject to the Easement.” (¶24 of FAC.) Significantly, a review of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Separate Statement reveals that all material facts relating to this issue are undisputed. (While Defendants dispute SSUF Nos. 18 and 19, these disputes are immaterial as: (1) neither clearly affect or deny the existence of an Easement; and (2) The evidence cited by Defendants does not support their position. Moreover, Defendants’ Opposition clearly concedes: “the Hoffmans do not dispute the existence of some right of access; however, the contents, language and scope of the Easement are disputed.” (Opposition: 2:2-4).)

For example, it is undisputed Plaintiff is the owner of Lot 23, which includes an “Easement for Walkway or Runway Purposes Over the Westerly 5.00 Feet of Lot 24.” (SSUF No. 1.) Additionally, it is undisputed Plaintiff “has never sold or conveyed his interest in the westerly five feet of Lot 24 to anyone other than himself as trustee of a revocable living trust, as described in the title documents pertaining to Lot 23 and Lot 24.” (SSUF No. 17.) Further, it is undisputed Defendants Norman and Ann Hoffman are the current owners of Lot 24. (SSUF No. 2.) Significantly, however, pursuant to SSUF No. 16 and ¶3 of Plaintiff’s Declaration, despite the parties agreement that Plaintiff is the owner of Lot 23, the current owner is Michael Carden, as Trustee of the Bellagan Trust dated November 14, 2012. (See also Exhibit “14” of Carden Dec.) SSUF No. 16 is also undisputed and Defendants do not raise an objection based on standing. Nonetheless, given that the evidence clearly shows Plaintiff (the individual) is not the current owner of the Property, the Court cannot quiet title in favor of Plaintiff. Nor can the Court adjudicate that “Plaintiff Michael Carden, as Owner of Lot 23 owns an appurtenant easement…” Accordingly, the Court DENIES Adjudication of Issue No. 1.

Private Nuisance (Issue No. 2): Plaintiff’s second request for adjudication seeks the following determination:

The Physical Improvements on the Easement Made or Maintained by Defendants Norman and Ann Hoffman Constitute a Private Continuing Nuisance to the Owner of Lot 23, Justifying Abatement Through Removal Thereof.

Pursuant to Civil Code section 3479, a “nuisance” includes “an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property…” Given the evidence demonstrating Plaintiff is not the owner of the property (or easement), it is wholly unclear whether Plaintiff has standing to bring a Private Nuisance claim. The Court DENIES Adjudication of the Second Issue on this basis.

Based on the above, the Motion is DENIED in its entirety.