Facts

Plaintiff Sumner Hill Homeowners' Association Inc. sued for declaratory relief, quiet title, and injunctive relief to gain access for their subdivision to the San Joaquin River, which had been restricted by defendants following their purchase of adjoining property.

A gate installed by the defendants regulated the subdivision road leading to the river. The defendants also recorded a document and published statements that the homeowners did not have access rights to the river and that their subdivision was not a private, gated subdivision, but was open to the public.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that defendants were pursuing a large residential development on adjoining lands and wanted access through the private subdivision to be able to sell river access lots to potential buyers for their new subdivision. The plaintiffs also contended that they were promised a private, gated community with river access by the original developer when their subdivision was established in the mid-1980s near the San Joaquin River in Madera County.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended that the Subdivision Map Act requires that there be public access through the subdivision and that plaintiffs had no easement rights.

Settlement Discussions

The defendants rejected the plaintiffs C.C.P. section 998 offer of $450,000 (as per plaintiff's counsel); $400,000 (as per defense counsel). According to defense counsel: The C.C.P. section 998 offer did not include one plaintiff and would have forced the defendants to accept the court's ruling from the first phase of trial.

Damages

Related damage claims were asserted by both sides, including plaintiff association's claim for $525,000 in attorney fees and costs incurred in attaining the favorable equitable results in the first phase trial. According to plaintiff's counsel: The defendants sought $650,000 for slander of title and trespass claims in their cross-complaint.

Result

The trial court granted the equitable claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and quiet title following the first phase of trial. The second phase consisted of a jury trial in which damages of $3,223,751 were awarded to plaintiffs. The award included $2,419,800 in punitive damages. No damages were awarded on the cross-complaint.

Other Information

FILING DATE: April 19, 2006.

Deliberation

three days

Poll

11-1 (liability), 12-0 (malice), 10-2 (punitives)

Length

eight weeks