Fulle v. Kanani

• Decision Date: 31 January 2017
• Docket Number: B271240
• Citation: Fulle v. Kanani, 7 Cal.App.5th 1305, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 920 (Cal. App. 2017)
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Jeanette E. FULLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Kaveh M. KANANI, Defendant and Respondent.

7 Cal.App.5th 1305

212 Cal.Rptr.3d 920

Jeanette E. FULLE, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Kaveh M. KANANI, Defendant and Respondent.

B271240

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

Filed January 31, 2017

Law Office of Dennis Ardi, Dennis Ardi ; Garfield & Tepper and Scott J. Tepper, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Nelson Griffin, Edwin C. Mann, Raymond J. Muro, Los Angeles; Law Offices of Cleidin Z. Atanous and Cleidin Z. Atanous, Brea, for Defendant and Respondent.

EPSTEIN, P.J.

RespondentKaveh Kanani shares a property line with his neighbor, appellantJeanette Fulle.Without obtaining Fulle's permission, Kanani hired workers to cut down the limbs and branches of six trees located on Fulle's property.Fulle sued for trespass and negligence, seeking damages for injury to the trees, restoration costs, and damages for annoyance and discomfort.She sought enhanced damages under Civil Code section 3346, subdivision (a)¹ which provides trial courts with discretion to treble damages to "compensate for the actual detriment""[f]or wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood upon the land of another."

The trial court trebled Fulle's economic damages but declined to apply the multiplier to her damages for annoyance and discomfort.The court reasoned that the use of the term "actual detriment" in section 3346 limits the damage multiplier to actual economic damages and does not extend to intangible, noneconomic damages.We find no such limitation in section 3346 or the plain language of California's other applicable timber trespass statute(Code Civ. Proc., § 733 ).We also find no indication that the Legislature intended to limit the availability of annoyance and discomfort damages under these statutes.We conclude that annoyance and discomfort damages are subject to the statutory damage multiplier for trespass to timber, and accordingly reverse and remand the matter to the trial court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Fulle has resided at her home in a hillside neighborhood of Encino, California since 2001.Her property is located downhill from a home acquired by Kanani in October 2013.The contiguous properties are demarcated by a fence.Five mature eucalyptus trees and a black walnut tree were located near the fence on the Fulle property, which provided her home with aesthetic benefits, shade, and privacy.The trees also partially blocked Kanani's view of the San Fernando Valley.Shortly after acquiring his property, Kanani hired Carlos Salvador to trim several trees.On November 16, 2013, Salvador and several workers entered the Fulle property without her permission and cut down the limbs and branches of the six trees.

Fulle filed a complaint for trespass and negligence against Kanani in January 2014.She alleged that Kanani, without obtaining her consent, directed Salvador to "cut the trees down to less than half their height and denude them of all branches and leaves," leaving "bare tree trunks" and depriving her of the "beauty, shade and privacy that that trees afforded."Fulle sought treble damages for trespass and double damages for negligence under section 3346.She also sought damages for the "annoyance and discomfort she suffer[ed] from the loss of the shade and privacy ... and for the annoyance and discomfort she will suffer as and when repairs are made" to the property.Kanani admitted in his answer that the trees partially blocked his view and that he did not have Fulle's permission to cut them down.He admitted that the trees were cut but "denie[d] that he did so or directed that it be done."

Fulle's brief before trial further explained the remedies she sought.Because Kanani allegedly acted "willfully and maliciously" when he ordered Salvador to cut the trees, Fulle asserted that the measure of damages should be three times the "actual detriment" under section 3346.Fulle argued that the eucalyptus trees were irreparably damaged and needed to be removed and replaced, which would require building a retaining wall to shore up the hillside.Her damages calculation included tree damage, loss of aesthetic benefits, and the costs of removing and replacing the eucalyptus trees, building a retaining wall, and aftercare of the trees.In addition, she sought annoyance and discomfort damages, costs of renting another house during construction, and interest.

The case was tried before a jury in November 2015.The jury found by special verdict that Kanani's agent, Salvador, cut or trimmed Fulle's trees and was acting within the scope of the agency when he did so.The jury also found that Kanani acted intentionally, willfully, and maliciously in causing Salvador to enter Fulle's property and cut or trim her trees.The jury awarded $27,500 for damage to the trees, $20,000 for the cost of repairing the harm, and $30,000 for "[p]ast noneconomic loss (including annoyance and discomfort, loss of enjoyment of the real property, inconvenience and emotional distress)."

After the verdict was read and the jury excused, Fulle moved for treble damages, and the court requested briefing on the application of section 3346.Fulle contended that the term "actual detriment" as used in the statute includes both the damage to the trees and the harm that she personally suffered as a result, thus the multiplier applied to both economic and noneconomic damages.Kanani argued that the damage multiplier should only apply to economic damages and maintained that only double damages were warranted.

The trial court entered a judgment on November 23, 2015.The judgment doubled economic damages under section 3346 but declined to apply the multiplier to noneconomic damages awarded by the jury.Fulle moved to vacate the judgment and enter an amended judgment seeking to treble all damages awarded by the jury.

Following briefing by the parties, the trial court granted the motion to vacate.The court stated that it had made an error and intended to exercise its discretion to impose treble damages under section 3346.The court entered an amended judgment in February 2016, which trebled economic damages.The court, however, declined to treble noneconomic damages under the statute.The court noted that " ‘[d]etriment’ " is generally defined by section 3282 as "a loss or harm suffered in person or property."But the use of the term " ‘actual detriment’ " in section 3346, the court reasoned, suggested the Legislature intended to narrow recoverable damages to "actual economic damages as opposed to more intangible non-economic damages."

This timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

This case presents an issue of first impression in California: whether annoyance and discomfort damages resulting from injuries to trees may be doubled or trebled under the timber trespass statutes.(§ 3346;Code Civ. Proc., § 733.)

"Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo.[Citation.]‘Our fundamental task in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature's intent so as to effectuate the law's purpose.We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning.We do not examine that language in isolation, but in the context of the statutory framework as a whole in order to determine its scope and purpose and to harmonize the various parts of the enactment.If the language is clear, courts must generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not intend.If the statutory language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the statute's purpose, legislative history, and public policy.’[Citation.]"(Bruns v. E–Commerce Exchange, Inc.(2011)51 Cal.4th 717, 724, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 331, 248 P.3d 1185.)

Section 733 of the Code of Civil Procedure(section 733 ) was originally enacted in 1851.(SeeStats. 1851, ch. 5, § 251, p. 92.)The statute was incorporated into the Code of Civil Procedure in 1872, and since has read: "Any person who cuts down or carries off any wood or underwood, tree, or timber, or girdles or otherwise injures any tree or timber on the land of another person, or on the street or highway in front of any person's house, village, or city lot, or cultivated grounds; or on the commons or public grounds of any city or town, or on the street or highway in front thereof, without lawful authority, is liable to the owner of such land, or to such city or town, for treble the amount of damages which may be assessed therefor, in a civil action, in any Court having jurisdiction."(17A West's Ann. Code Civ. Proc.(2015 ed.) foll. § 733, p. 219.)

When the Legislature adopted the Civil Code in 1872, it borrowed a similar timber trespass statute from the New York Field Code.²Unlike section 733, which appears to mandate treble damages, former Civil Code section 3346 included two damage measures: "For wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood upon the land of another, or removal thereof, the measure of damages is three times such a sum as would compensate for the actual detriment, except where the trespass was casual and involuntary, or committed under the belief that the land belonged to the trespasser, or where the wood was taken by the authority of highway officers for the purposes of a highway; in which cases the damages are a sum equal to the actual detriment."(Former Civ. Code, § 3346, repealed by Stats. 1957, ch. 2346, § 2, p. 4076.)

Section 3346 remained unchanged until it was repealed, amended, and reenacted in 1957.(Stats. 1957, ch. 2346, § 2, p. 4076.)The new section 3346 preserved the original language regarding treble damages, but added a double damages provision.(See generallyGhera v. Sugar Pine Lumber Co . (1964)224 Cal.App.2d 88, 89–91, 36 Cal.Rptr. 305(Ghera ).)Section 3346, subdivision (a) currently reads: "For wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood upon the land of another, or removal thereof, the measure of damages is three times such sum as would compensate for the...