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

William Hobi, Soojung Hobi v. George C. Smith

Published: Aug. 27, 2011 | Result Date: Aug. 6, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: RG07318603 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Kenneth S. Katzoff

Stephen G. Preonas
(Katzoff & Riggs LLP)


Defendant

Robert P. Rich

William J. Murray


Facts

William and Soojung Hobi were trustees of the Hobi-Ko Family Trust, which owned real property and improvements at the subject property (Hobi Parcel). George Smith and Ingrid Torngren-Smith owned the adjoining property (Smith Parcel). Two adjacent driveways existed between the parcels with the length of the driveway running along the boundary line separating the two parcels.

The Hobis purchased the property in Sept. 2000, and had resided there since 2001. Their interest in the parcel was transferred to the Trust in 2002. The Hobis contended that from the time the Hobis began residing at the property until the events that precipitated the filing of this complaint, all parties had utilized the driveways without obstruction for several decades.

On Feb. 12, 2007, the Smiths erected a chain-link fence on the property just inside their driveway, which the Hobis contended obstructed access to the Hobi Parcel and interfered with the entrance and exit of the Hobis to and from the parcel. The Hobis sued the Smiths claiming it owned an easement appurtenant to the parcel that included the right of use, without obstruction, to a portion of the driveway that existed on the Smith Parcel, and to preclude Smith from parking in front of their own garage, at the top of the driveway.

The Smiths, however, denied that there was ever an express shared driveway easement. The Smiths claimed that the Hobis had been remodeling and landscaping their property for over two years and after enduring years of dust, noise, and loss of privacy, they decided to install a temporary fence at the top of their driveway, which was entirely on their property. They also claimed that the Hobis, having deprived themselves of the turn-around area on their own property to expand the landscaping of their renovated rear yard, preferred to use their space for decorative landscaping and were trying to use the court process to appropriate a portion of the Smiths' property to 'replace' that turnaround area.

Result

A bench trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the defense.


#117908

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

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