John Nelson and Bill Davis v. Artise Hardy, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive
Published: Jul. 10, 2010 | Result Date: May 6, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: RG07328414 Verdict – $47,250
Court
Alameda Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Sharon A. Garske
(Office of the Attorney General)
H. Paul Bryant
(Law Offices of H. Paul Bryant)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Ernest Renner
(technical)
David Jackowitz
(technical)
Steve Tappan
(technical)
Don Dunning
(technical)
Defendant
Robert Brunel
(technical)
Alison Teeman
(technical)
Gary Lazar
(technical)
Facts
Plaintiffs John Nelson and Bill Davis lived on Rosemount Road in Oakland and shared a boundary with property owned by defendant Artise Hardy. Nelson and Davis also owned the property parallel to the boundary upon which a non-reinforced cinder block wall was built by an antecedent owner of Hardy's property. Given that the higher portion of the wall went over a driveway owned by Nelson and Davis, they sued Hardy, alleging breach of contract, trespass, and intentional interference with contract. Hardy then filed a cross-complaint, alleging that plaintiffs committed negligence when removing and building the driveway and retaining wall, and had committed trespass.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that, before filing the lawsuit, they notified defendant that they wanted to take the wall off their property and install a natural rock wall instead. Paintiffs argued that Hardy failed to object to this plan and that Hardy negotiated with laborers as to excavation along the boundary line for the wall's foundation, and reached an agreement. According to plaintiffs, Hardy later complained about the work, posted no trespassing signs, and denied the existence of any agreement. Plaintiffs alleged that they had to hire Structural Engineering Inc. to design a new wall, but defendant stated that she would not negotiate around her specifications for the wall.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant argued that the wall was located on her land and belonged to her. She also claimed that removal of the wall occurred absent her permission and resulted in damage to her property. In addition, she denied that any contract existed between the parties.
Injuries
Plaintiffs sought $47,000 and requested that the court adjudge the proper boundary line. Defendant requested emotional distress damages.
Result
The jury awarded plaintiffs $47,250.
Deliberation
3.5 hours
Poll
12-0 (for plaintiffs), 12-0 (for plaintiffs on the cross-complaint)
Length
two weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390