Facts

Plaintiffs Richard and Leslie Fredericks are a retired couple who live in the La Quinta Resort, located just north of a large housing development. The common property consisted of streets inside the development, owned and maintained by the Santa Rosa Cove Association (SRCA).

In 1990, plaintiffs were informed by SRCA that a gate was to be erected across the street that was south of their home. This gate would prevent plaintiffs from accessing the private streets that ran through the development.

Initially, plaintiffs attempted to obtain an injunction to preclude this construction. Instead, plaintiffs alleged they orally agreed with SRCA to have the gate built, but they would be provided electronic clickers to open the gate from their cars. Plaintiffs further alleged that SRCA agreed to pay for maintenance costs.

The gate was constructed in 1991 and for the next 10 years, plaintiffs alleged they passed through the gate using their clickers.

In 2001, the gate broke and plaintiffs requested that SRCA fix it. SRCA asked for written documentation confirming the claimed gate agreement. Plaintiffs were unable to satisfy this request, asserting that they had an oral agreement. To protect their property, SRCA had the gate padlocked.

Plaintiffs were required to use another road that ran through the center of the La Quinta Resort to obtain access to public roads.

In 2003, plaintiffs sued SRCA for interference with easement rights, breach of oral agreement, personal injury and other claims.

In 2006, the superior court issued a preliminary injunction based on the finding that plaintiffs were most likely to succeed on the merits. The appellate court upheld this injunction. 30 days subsequent, plaintiffs cut off the lock on the gate and used the gate manually until trial began.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs claimed that the road used after the gate was locked was frequently blocked by trucks and bicycles as well as pedestrians and double-parking visitors. Plaintiffs also contended that use of this lane caused a three minute increase in their driving time.

Plaintiffs further claimed that following the preliminary injunction, security guards continued to deny them and their family as well as guests access.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that plaintiffs possessed no known easement rights and that there was no oral agreement. Additionally, if there was an oral agreement, the Statute of Fraud made it unenforceable.

After the preliminary injunction was granted, defendant claimed that plaintiffs had complete access to the property; that if any family or friends were denied access, it was due to security guard error and not because of SRCA.

Damages

Plaintiffs requested relief for economic loss and pain and suffering as well as punitive damages. Defendant contended there was no damage as the plaintiffs had a second route available.

Result

Immediately after the verdicts were read, the court set a briefing schedule on post-trial motions and has stayed entry of judgment until post-trial motions are ruled upon. The jury awarded $2 million in favor of the plaintiffs.

Deliberation

one day

Poll

12-0 (compensatory damages), 9-3 (punitive damages)

Length

five days