DeBevoise v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 29 December 2022
• Docket Number: D078207,D078679
• Parties: ANNE E. DEBEVOISE et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents, v. RANDALL ROBINSON, Individually and as Trustee, etc. et al., Defendants, Cross-complainant and Appellants.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

ANNE E. DEBEVOISE et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents,
v.
RANDALL ROBINSON, Individually and as Trustee, etc. et al., Defendants, Cross-complainant and Appellants.

D078207, D078679

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

December 29, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CONSOLIDATED APPEALS from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. 37-2016-00017584-CU-OR-CTL Ronald L. Styn, Judge. Affirmed.

Blackmar, Principe & Schmelter and Timothy D. Principe for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents.

DeLano & DeLano, Everett L. DeLano III and M. Dare DeLano for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.

1

DATO, ACTING P. J.

After a bench trial, the trial court resolved a dispute between two neighbors by creating an equitable easement and granting other relief in favor of plaintiffs Anne DeBevoise-Abel and Nicolas Abel (collectively the DeBevoises). Defendants Randall Robinson (Randy) and Pamela Robinson (Pam), individually, and as trustees of the Robinson Trust dated May 13, 2013 (collectively the Robinsons) appeal the judgment, including an earlier order sustaining a demurrer to a portion of their cross-complaint, and a postjudgment order awarding attorney's fees and costs to the DeBevoises. The Robinsons contend the trial court prejudicially erred when it awarded the DeBevoises an equitable easement over their property. Even assuming the propriety of the easement, the Robinsons claim the trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible error by: (1) expanding the easement's scope of use; (2) extending it in perpetuity; and (3) refusing to award damages. The Robinsons next assert that the trial court erred: (1) in creating and awarding the DeBevoises a quasi-irrevocable license for their drainage pipe; (2) granting a permanent injunction; (3) awarding attorney's fees to the DeBevoises; and (4) by sustaining the DeBevoises' demurrer to the Robinsons' financial elder abuse causes of action without leave to amend.

As we shall explain, we reject the Robinsons' arguments and affirm the orders and judgment.

2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND^[1]

The parties live in Pacifica Unit 2, a planned community with "stepped and height restricted" lots to allow for "views over and beyond adjoining residences." Their properties were subject to a Declaration of Restrictions recorded in 1960 (the Original Declaration) by the builders and then-owners of all lots in the community. In 2013, the community adopted an Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictions (Amended Declaration). The Amended Declaration provides that its "primary purpose . . . is to preserve the view corridors of each home to the maximum practical extent" and created a three-person Architectural Committee. "Any modifications, improvements, or changes to improvements to a Residence that adversely affect, impact or impair the view corridors of any surrounding Residences are subject to review and approval by the Architectural Committee before any work on said modifications or changes can commence." (Boldface omitted.) Failure to comply with the Amended Declaration "decisions, or resolutions shall be grounds for an action to recover sums due, for damages, or for injunctive relief."

The parties are the second generation to own and live in their homes, their parents having bought the homes when they were new. Anne and Randy both lived in their respective homes as children, and eventually took

3

ownership from their parents.^[2] Anne believed that the property line between her home and the Robinsons' home ran midway on the slope between the two properties stating, "That's how all the properties in the neighborhood were divided up." However, the property line between these two homes is different. It runs at a slight angle so that the western corner of the pad above the slope is owned by the Robinsons, whose home is on the pad below.

During trial, the parties referred to that portion of land owned by the Robinsons above the top of the slope as "the Point." The DeBevoises used the Point for, among other things, a pathway that allowed them to access the upper portion of their property which was otherwise inaccessible due to the steep incline.

In 1998, Anne obtained a letter (the Letter) from 89-year-old Rex Robinson, Randy's father, while he was hospitalized. In the Letter, Rex indicated that he agreed to a "lot-line adjustment and a view easement."^[3]

4

Thereafter, the DeBevoises installed an underground drainage pipe across a portion of the Point that exited into a drainage culvert and city easement along the westerly and southwesterly 10 feet of the Robinsons' property. The drainage pipe replaced an older inadequate drainage pipe that had been abandoned.

In 2012, the Robinsons' proposal to put a fence along the property line created a dispute between the parties. The DeBevoises, however, continued to use the Point as they always had, including to maintain the plants growing there and for access to the upper portion of their property.

In 2016, after another disagreement, the Robinsons installed a portion of a fence, plastic chairs, large pots with plants, and wood stakes along a portion of the Point, blocking the DeBevoises' view and blocking their access along the path they historically used to access the upper portion of their property. In early May 2016, the DeBevoises' lawyer wrote a demand letter to Randy that attached the Letter and claimed that the DeBevoise family had rights to the Point. Later that month, the DeBevoises filed this action.

While the lawsuit was pending, the DeBevoises made a formal complaint to the community's Architectural Committee. The Architectural Committee determined that the items placed on the Point by the Robinsons impeded the DeBevoises' view. The Architectural Committee informed the Robinsons that the items violated the Amended Declaration and requested their removal. The Robinsons refused to remove the items.

Before trial, the court observed that the DeBevoises were not basing any of their claims on the Letter, and the DeBevoises' counsel informed the court and the Robinsons that the DeBevoises were not relying on the Letter

5

in any way for their claims. During a four-day bench trial, the court heard testimony from the parties, some neighbors, and several experts. Anne testified that she never completed the lot-line adjustment mentioned in the Letter and was not relying on the Letter to claim any right to the Robinsons' property.

The trial court inspected the parties' two properties with counsel and then issued an oral statement of decision. It awarded the DeBevoises an equitable easement across the Robinsons' property for access to the upper portion of the DeBevoises' property and a revocable license for the drainage pipe. It found in favor of the DeBevoises on their claim for violation of the view restriction provisions of the Amended Declaration and issued a permanent injunction to prevent future violations. In posttrial proceedings, the trial court found the DeBevoises to be the prevailing parties and awarded them a portion of their attorney's fees and costs.

DISCUSSION

I. General Legal Principles and the Standard of Review

A trial court judgment is presumed to be correct (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133) and the appellant has the burden to overcome that presumption and show reversible error. (State Farm Fire &Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610.) A reviewing court will overturn a trial court's equitable decision only if it finds an abuse of the court's discretion that resulted in a miscarriage of justice. (Tashakori v. Lakis (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1008 (Tashakori) ["When reviewing a trial court's exercise of its equity powers to fashion an equitable easement, we will overturn the decision only if we find that the court abused its discretion."]; cf. Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 355, 359 ["It follows that the trial court's decision [regarding the

6

right to a setoff] was one subject to an exercise of its equitable powers, and that the only issue before us on this appeal is whether that discretion was so abused that it resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. "].)

" '[O]ne of the essential attributes of abuse of discretion is that it must clearly appear to effect injustice. [Citations.] Discretion is abused whenever, in its exercise, the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered.'" (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 566 (Denham).) "When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court." (Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478-479.)

II. Equitable Easement for Access

A. Additional Background

The trial judge found that viewing photographs of the parties' properties could be "very misleading" depending on the age and angle of the photograph. Immediately before issuing his oral statement of decision, the judge visited the parties' properties, walking the lots and taking photographs. The court ultimately declined to find a prescriptive easement, but concluded that the DeBevoises were entitled to an equitable easement over the Point for ingress and egress to allow them to maintain the upper portion of their property.^[4] It found the DeBevoises did not act willfully or negligently, and would suffer "irreparable injury" if they did not have some access. It further

7

determined that the DeBevoises' hardship "would be greatly disproportionate to the hardship caused to" the Robinsons.

B. Legal Principles

"In appropriate cases in which the requirements for traditional easements are not present, California courts have exercised their equity powers to fashion protective interests in land belonging to another...