Laursen v. Pope, 2d Civil No. B159647 (Cal. App. 11/23/2003)

Decision Date23 November 2003
Docket Number2d Civil No. B159647.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesEARL LAURSEN, Appellant, v. HARRY C. POPE AND VICKI A. POPE, Respondents.

Super. Ct. No. CV001013 San Luis Obispo County, E. Jeffrey Burke, Judge.

John F. Hodges, for Appellant.

Jay A. Hieatt, Stephanie A. Bowen; Hall & Hieatt, for Respondents.

YEGAN, J.

Earl Laursen appeals from a $1,146,000 judgment entered in favor of Harry C. Pope and Vicki A. Pope after a jury found that Laursen intentionally destroyed a water system servicing Pope's house in Nipomo. Laursen contends, among other things, that the judgment is not supported by the evidence and that the award for compensatory and punitive damages is excessive.

As we shall explain, the award for $750,000 punitive damages is disproportionate to Laursen's net worth and must be reduced. (Storage Services v. Oosterbaan (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 498, 515-516.) We reduce the punitive damages to $295,000. As modified, we affirm the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 906.)

Facts and Procedural History

This action arises out of a water and road dispute that dates back 20 years. In 1980, Laursen sold Harry C. Pope and Vicki A. Pope 10.63 acres (Parcel 3) which included a 10-foot wide easement across Laursen's property (Parcel 2) for a water line. Laursen represented that water would be available from a neighbor's well (the Rubio well) after he subdivided Parcels 1, 2 and 4 and installed a community water system. It was agreed that Pope could take water from a well on Parcel 2 until a hook up was made to the Rubio well.

Pope built a home and installed a water line to the Rubio well in 1984. Rubio, however, disconnected the water line and claimed that Pope did not have an electrical easement to operate the well.

Pope reconnected the water line to the Parcel 2 well and sued after Laursen denied access to the well. (Case No. 58423.) The trial court ordered Laursen not to interfere with Pope's use of the well. We reversed and held that Laursen was not obligated to supply water from the Parcel 2 well after Pope established a water line to the Rubio well. (B029444.)

In a related action, Laursen sued to maintain a water line to the Rubio well. (Laursen v. Rubio, San Luis Obispo County Sup. Ct., Case No. 57806.) The trial court found that Laursen had an easement to install, maintain, repair and replace the well equipment, the water and electrical lines, and appurtenant facilities. The easement ran in favor of Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4, including Parcel 3 owned by Pope.

After judgment was entered in the Laursen-Rubio action, Pope connected a water line to the Rubio well. Laursen, however, cut and pulled up the water line. Pope obtained an injunction (Case No. 58423) but Laursen continued to vandalize the water system and was threatened with criminal prosecution.

This resulted in a new round of litigation. Laursen sued for trespass, nuisance, emotional distress, and malicious prosecution. (Case No. 68528.) Pope filed a cross-complaint and obtained a preliminary injunction. In 1998, a jury found that the easement across Laursen's property (Parcel 2) included the right to maintain an electrical line to operate the Rubio well.

On January 26, 1999, Laursen and Pope entered into a stipulated judgment to install a water monitoring system and water meters. The judgment provided that a 7,500 gallon community water tank would be installed on the eastern portion of Laursen's property and that the parcel owners would share the cost of installing the electrical system and tank.

After Pope obtained work estimates, Laursen removed well head equipment and cut the water and electrical lines. Pope sought an injunction. (Case No. CV001013.) On August 9, 2001, the trial court enjoined Laursen from "touching, interfering, tampering with or removing any part of the water pipe line or well system located . . . on the Rubio land or that which runs within the ten foot easement on Parcel 2."

Road Dispute

Laursen also disputed Pope's use of a dirt road on the south border of Parcel 4. After Pope improved the road to access his property, Laursen sued for trespass damages. (Case No. CV66124.)

In 1993, a jury found that Pope had a prescriptive easement. Laursen and his wife were awarded $100 damages for any trespass occurring before the prescriptive easement was perfected. We reversed part of the judgment because it failed to specify the dimensions of the easement and affirmed the special verdict for damages. (B085522.)

The Present Action

On November 17, 2000, Laursen sued for trespass and nuisance damages, claiming that Pope had no right to use the access road. Pope filed a cross-complaint for nuisance, infliction of emotional distress, punitive damages, and declaratory relief.

Laursen's Complaint

The trial court found that Laursen was collaterally estopped from recovering trespass damages if the access road was inside the prescriptive easement adjudicated in 1993. The trial court granted an in limine motion limiting Laursen's damages to encroachments outside the prescriptive easement.

A surveyor testified that the location of the access road had not changed since 1993 and was within the prescriptive easement. The jury awarded Laursen no trespass damages.

Pope's Cross-Complaint

Evidence was received that Laursen intentionally cut the water line more than 10 times after he was ordered to cease and desist.

The jury, by special verdict, found that Laursen sabotaged Pope's water supply and acted with malice. The Popes were awarded $80,000 property damages, $16,000 loss of use and enjoyment of their property ($8,000 each), and $300,000 emotional distress damages. In the second phase of trial, the jury awarded $750,000 punitive damages.

In Limine Order: Trespass Damages

Laursen argues that the trial court erred in finding that he was estopped by the 1993 judgment awarding Pope a prescriptive easement. In B085522, we held that the judgment was too vague and ambiguous to be enforced because it failed to describe the dimensions of the easement. Laursen's award for $100 trespass damages, however, was affirmed. We held that "[t]he special verdict finding that Pope had a prescriptive easement was an interlocutory finding to calculate Laursen's damages."

Having received the benefit of the 1993 judgment, Laursen's present action for trespass damages was properly limited to enroachments outside the prescriptive easement. (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Judgment (4th ed. 1997) § 354, pp. 915-917; Stonewall Ins. Co. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1810, 1840; Sandoval v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 932, 936-937.) "Collateral estoppel is an equitable concept based on fundamental principles of fairness. For issue preclusion purposes it means that a party ordinarily may not relitigate an issue that was fully and fairly litigated on a previous occasion." (Id., at p. 941.)

Laursen's complaint states: "Plaintiffs have previously litigated this same issue with the Defendants and have previously been Awarded Judgment against the Defendants in 2d Civ NO. B085522 . . . ." This judicial admission estops Laursen and bars consideration of contrary evidence. (Valerio v. Andrew Youngquist Construction (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1271.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the in limine motion limiting Laursen's trespass damages. (E.g., Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 277, 285 [in limine order may be based res judicata/collateral estoppel grounds].)

Pope's Cross-Complaint: Property Damages

Laursen claims that the verdict for $80,000 property damages is excessive. The argument is based on the theory that the damage to the water system was a temporary nuisance and only permits an award for repair costs ($1,860). The repairs, however, did not abate the nuisance. After Laursen was ordered to stop tampering with the water system, he cut the electrical and water lines and removed a well control unit. Laursen admitted violating the injunction and said that "he didn't care, he was going to continue to do that."

Where the nuisance cannot be abated as a practical matter, the plaintiff may sue on a permanent nuisance theory. (Kornoff v. Kingsburg Cotton Oil Co. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 265, 271.) Damages include diminution in market value. (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 464.) " ' In case of doubt as to the permanency of the injury the plaintiff may elect whether to treat a particular nuisance as permanent or continuing.' [Citation.]" (Wilshire Westwood Associates v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 732, 744.)

Here the harassment and denial of water service affected the value of Pope's property. In order to sell Parcel 3, Pope reduced the sale price $75,000 to $100,000 below market value. When Laursen heard about the pending sale, he recorded documents to thwart the sale and prevent the buyer from obtaining conventional financing. Pope had to reduce the sale price another $10,000 to pay for a water hookup and new access road for the buyer.

Citing Shaeffer v. Debbas (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 33, Laursen asserts that damages for negligent injury to real property are limited to cost of repair or diminution in value, whichever is less. We reject the argument because the damages are based on intentional acts. "There is no fixed, inflexible rule for determining the measure of damages for injury to, or destruction of, property; whatever formula is most appropriate to compensate the injured party for the loss sustained in the particular case, will be adopted. [Citations.]" (Basin Oil Co. v. Baash-Ross Tool Co. (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 578, 606.)

The diminution in value was not due to broken water pipes, but Laursen's intentional torts and harassment. Pope incurred $ 300,000 attorney's fees, sought bankruptcy protection, and obtained an injunction, all to no avail. Laursen continued to disrupt water...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT