Ma v. MT Son, LLC

• Decision Date: 15 February 2023
• Docket Number: B320965
• Parties: JAWON MA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MT SON, LLC, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

1

JAWON MA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MT SON, LLC, Defendant and Appellant.

B320965

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

February 15, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 19STCV32106, Randolph M. Hammock, Judge. Affirmed.

Timothy D. McGonigle for Appellant.

Kim Shapiro, Park &Lee, John P. Lee and Paul Park for Respondent.

FEUER J.

Mt Son LLC, appeals from a judgment entered after a bench trial in favor of Jawon Ma, in which the trial court granted an equitable easement over Mt Son's property for the benefit of Ma's adjacent property. Mt Son contends the court erred in granting the easement-which allows Ma to use Mt Son's driveway to access her backyard for trash removal, gardening, and maintenance-because the evidence at trial did not support a finding in favor of Ma on each of the required elements for an equitable easement. Mt Son also argues the court erred in denying its motions to correct the statement of decision and for a new trial. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Properties^[1]

Ma is the owner of real property located at 1245-1247 East Colorado Street in Glendale (Ma property). She inherited the property from her parents, who acquired it around 1980. The rectangular lot is approximately 50 feet wide along the street and 120 feet deep. A single building occupies the full width of the property and is divided into two commercial units used by tenants for retail shops and restaurants. At the back of the property is an undeveloped yard (backyard) on which is a storage shed and tenants' trash bins. There is no access to the backyard over Ma's property except through the building and up a flight of stairs leading to the back of the building.^[2] Mt Son owns the neighboring property on the east side of the Ma property at 1301-1303 East Colorado Street (Mt Son property). Mt Son acquired the property in August 2018. The lot is approximately 50 feet wide and 190 feet deep. The property contains a small commercial building on the street and three residential buildings at the rear of the lot. A paved driveway approximately 10 feet wide runs along the western perimeter of the property-adjacent to the Ma property-which provides access to the three residential buildings.

In 1971 Mabel Rauch, then-owner of the Ma property, and Vladamir Vly, then-owner of the Mt Son property, recorded an easement agreement granting Rauch drainage access for water flowing from the rear of the Ma property over the Mt Son driveway. In exchange, Rauch granted an easement to Vly for him and his tenants to use Raush's backyard for private parking. The agreement provided each of the easements would terminate upon the death of the owner or sale of the property. It is undisputed the easement agreement expired long ago.^[3]

B. The First Amended Complaint

Ma filed this action against Mt Son on September 10, 2019.^[4] The operative first amended complaint (complaint) asserted causes of action for quiet title, easement by estoppel, easement by necessity, easement by prescription, trespass, permanent injunction, and declaratory relief. The complaint alleged that due to the layout of the parties' properties, access over the Mt Son driveway provided the only viable access to Ma's backyard from the public street, and an easement had been in continuous use from 1980 until 2018, when Mt Son blocked Ma's access. Shortly after purchasing the Mt Son property in 2018, Mt Son erected a wooden fence between the two properties. Mt Son removed the fence a few months later and planted trees along the property line that likewise blocked Ma's access to the Mt Son driveway. Ma alleged further the trees were planted within her property line, constituting a trespass.

The second cause of action was styled as a cause of action for easement by estoppel, but it alleged the elements for an equitable easement. Ma alleged "the [e]asement in question has been in use for over a period of five years. [Ma has] been utilizing the [e]asement or right of way continuously with an innocent belief that [Ma] had a right to do so. Without provision for ingress and egress, there is no physical or economical viable access for necessary utility services, fire protection and emergency services, and quiet enjoyment of the [d]ominant [t]enement, which would cause irreparable harm. The [e]asement would not burden [Mt Son] greatly, or at all."

The complaint prayed for the granting of an easement over the Mt Son driveway and/or declaratory and injunctive relief recognizing Ma's legal right to use the driveway, an injunction ordering Mt Son to remove any obstructions that interfere with Ma's use of her property or the driveway, and economic and special damages caused by Mt Son's interference with Ma's use of the driveway.

C. The Evidence at Trial

A bench trial was held on December 13 and December 14, 2021. Ma testified and called as witnesses Hisajazu Ota (her gardener), Armik Mikailian (her former property manager), and Kevin Yoon Lai (a surveyor as an expert witness on the property line). Mt Son called as witnesses Mkrtich (Mike) Tamrazyan (Mt Son's principal member and owner), Daniel Svetich (owner prior to Tamrazyan), and Gary Davis (longtime tenant on the Mt Son property).

1. Ma's evidence

Ma testified that from the time her parents acquired the property in 1980, the only access to the backyard from the street was over the Mt Son property on the east side. To the west of the Ma property is the parking lot of an automotive parts store, with a masonry wall separating the properties. In the rear of the property is a brick wall between Ma's property and the neighbor's property to the north. There is no alley, pathway, or rear access.

In 1983 or 1984 Ma's parents installed a metal fence between Ma's backyard and the Mt Son property after receiving complaints from the owner of the Mt Son property that one of Ma's tenants was using the Mt Son driveway to park a vehicle in Ma's backyard. The fence remained at the time of trial. It had a pedestrian gate opening to the Mt Son driveway to enable use by Ma's tenants of the Mt Son driveway to move trash, receive deliveries, or for other purposes. Prior to October 2018, Ma's tenants used the gate and the Mt Son driveway to take their trash bins out to Colorado Street once per week for trash pickup (or twice per week in the case of restaurant tenants). Ma's gardeners also used the driveway "a few times a year" to drop off equipment and remove yard debris, and construction and maintenance workers occasionally used the driveway to deliver supplies to the Ma property.

Ma was aware the Mt Son property changed ownership in 2018, and in October 2018 Mt Son as the new owner, without notifying Ma, installed a wooden fence immediately in front of her gate, blocking access to the Mt Son driveway. Around January 2019, without notice, the wooden fence was removed and replaced with a row of trees that similarly blocked Ma's gate and her access to the Mt Son driveway.^[5]

Ma described her tenants' use of the Mt Son driveway. A pawn shop had been a tenant since 1992 and used the gate and driveway. Ma could not recall if the upholstery store that was a tenant starting in 1984 used the gate to access the driveway. But Ma observed a shoe store that leased the property after the upholstery store use the gate once a week to move boxes in and out of the back area. In addition, a gift shop that was a tenant for five to seven years used the gate. Ma explained the tenants would bring their trash bins through the gate and down the driveway to the street. The city trash trucks did not use the driveway to pick up the tenants' trash. The court then inquired, "The driveway is not necessary for the trash people to drive up and pick it up?" Ma responded, "No."

Mikailian testified he began managing the Ma property around 2015 because the Ma family was living in another state. Around October 2018 Mikailian observed that Mt Son had erected a wooden fence in front of the Ma gate. Mikailian approached a person he believed to be the owner of the Mt Son property and complained that the fence blocked access for trash removal.^[6] Mt Son removed the fence "fairly quickly" but then planted the trees blocking the gate.

Mikailian received complaints from Ma's tenants, most significantly from Matias Restaurant. The restaurant had signed a three-year lease in October 2018 and opened shortly before the gate was blocked. The restaurant representatives complained they were unable to move their trash bins from the backyard to the street. In December 2019 Matias terminated its lease with two years remaining and withheld rent due to Ma's asserted failure to maintain the premises. The termination notice admitted at trial stated Ma breached the lease agreement because she "allowed the construction of a barrier that was not there when [the restaurant] signed the lease agreement. This barrier is interfering with [restaurant] business and is impeding on its employees' access to the common areas, including the dumpsters in the back of the facilities. [¶] As a result, . . . employees are forced to walk the trash through the restaurant on a daily basis in front of customers. Aside from being extremely unsightly, this creates a serious health hazard ....[¶]

Additionally the barrier is blocking the gardener's access. As a result, the gardener is forced to walk through the restaurant and up a flight of stairs, with all of his equipment....This is a direct violation of . . . the lease agreement because it impedes with . . . use and access to the common areas. Again, you can see how this type of unsanitary conduct creates a hazardous risk for patrons of the...