This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Property
Trespass
Nuisance

San Ysidro Partnership, Letherby Family Creamery Inc. v. Grace Ettl, Grace Ettl as trustee of the Grace Ettl Trust, et al.

Published: Jun. 1, 2005 | Result Date: Feb. 9, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CVCS031817 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Robert H. Damron

Court

Sutter Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Chester Morris


Defendant

Melissa B. Lucia

R. Ernest Montanari


Experts

Plaintiff

George R. Post
(technical)

Thomas E. Eskelson
(technical)

Larry Ernst
(technical)

Defendant

Bill Aten
(technical)

David K. Smith
(technical)

Robert D. Campbell
(technical)

Julian W. Whaley
(technical)

Facts

The plaintiffs were the purchasers of property in Meridian in August 2001 and sued the owners and lessors of adjacent properties to the north and east of their acreage. The plaintiffs argued that as a result of the plaintiffs planting, growing and harvesting of rice, there was water seepage which damages the plaintiffs' walnut trees. The defense maintained that the plaintiffs assumed the risk of the seepage, failed to mitigate their damages and that in any event the plaintiffs' alleged damages were speculative. They also argued that the plaintiffs had, prior to their acquisition of the property, a 30-day Due Diligence period during which they could have discovered the potential issues relating to underground rice growing.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs' final demand was $60,000. The defense offered to purchase the plaintiffs' 50 acres for $120,000 with 15 to 17 acres being the subject of the suit. On another occasion, the defense offered $10,000 for all damages and fees.

Damages

The plaintiffs argued that 407 trees had to be removed at a cost of $254 per tree. The plaintiffs asked the jury to award double or treble damages as compensation, pursuant to C.C.P. 3346 and 733 as well as attorney fees (C.C.P. 1021). The plaintiffs also claimed that 300 trees sustained one year of stunted growth with a value of $7 per tree. The plaintiffs also sought an injunction restricting the location of the defendants' rice operations in the future.

Result

The court granted an injunction restricting the future rice plantings by the defendants retaining jurisdiction to assure compliance. The jury reached a defense verdict on liability. The plaintiff's motion made during trial for directed verdict on liability for trespass and nuisance was denied.

Deliberation

one day

Length

two weeks


#116533

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390