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
Negligent Construction

Lindsey Fields v. Richard MacMinn

Published: Jul. 23, 2005 | Result Date: Apr. 21, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC297599 Verdict –  $2,099

Judge

Jane L. Johnson

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Gregory B. Gershuni
(Gershuni Law Firm)

Neal M. Goldstein


Defendant

F. James James Feffer


Facts

The plaintiff/cross-defendant, Lindsey Fields, alleged that the defendant/cross-complainant, Richard MacMinn was negligent in the excavation and construction of a retaining wall at the bottom of a slope in the rear of the MacMinn's property, which is just below Fields' property. As a result, Fields argued that the slope became unstable and Fields' swimming pool shell was damaged. Fields also alleged that MacMinn trespassed on his property by digging on his property, moving Fields' survey stakes, and overwatering the sloped areas of Fields' property. In a cross-complaint, MacMinn sought a prescriptive easement with respect to the maintenance of landscaping on a downslope on the Fields' property which has been watered and maintained by MacMinn for over five years. MacMinn also alleged that Fields wrongfully cut trees on his property.

Settlement Discussions

Defendant/cross-complainant made a C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $1,001 which was rejected.

Result

First cause of action for negligence: Defense. Second cause of action for trespass: Plaintiff verdict for $1.00. First cause of Action on cross-complaint for prescriptive easement: Verdict for cross-defendant, subject to pending motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Second cause of action on cross-complaint for wrongful cutting of trees: Verdict for cross-complainant for $2,100.

Other Information

Cross-complainant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied.

Deliberation

one day

Length

nine days


#93630

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

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