Sprankles v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 18 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | D075334 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CHUCK SPRANKLES et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants, v. SEAN SULLIVAN et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. 37-2014-00029243-CU-OR-NC)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ronald F. Frazier, Judge. Affirmed.
Blake Law Firm, Steven W. Blake and Andrew E. Hall for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffry A. Miller, Timothy J. Watson, and Ernest Slome; Chuck & Tsoong, Stephen C. Chuck and Carley Mak Lee for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents.
This appeal arises from a boundary dispute between two neighbors (the Sprankleses and the Sullivans) who live in a rural area of San Diego County. After a court trial with 20 witnesses and 79 exhibits, the court found the Sullivans were occupying a portion of the Sprankleses' property, but the Sullivans were entitled to remain in this portion of the property under theories of equitable easement and/or implied easement.1 The court directed the Sullivans to pay the Sprankleses $40,053 as compensation for the exclusive easement. The court also restricted the Sullivans' use of the easement to certain activities; required the Sullivans to pay property taxes and insurance for the easement; and ordered that the easement would run with the land.
On appeal, the Sprankleses challenge the court's legal and factual conclusions. As to the equitable easement, we conclude the court applied the correct legal principles and its findings are supported by the evidence. Based on this conclusion, we do not reach the court's alternative implied easement finding.
The Sprankles and Sullivan properties were a single 1.71-acre parcel in the early 1960's, owned by the Andersons. A home (built in 1952) was on the lower part of the parcel. There were no other buildings on the property.
In about 1964, Mr. Anderson applied to split the parcel into a larger upper lot and a smaller lower lot, and submitted a proposed map prepared by his contractor. The existing home was on the lower lot. The county grantedthe application and approved a final division plat map in January 1965 (1965 Map; attached as Appendix B, post, page 33). As depicted on Appendix B, this map showed the boundary line about 37 feet from, and parallel to, the corner of the existing home on the lower lot. (See Appendix B, green circle.)
In 1966, the Andersons built a home on the upper lot and moved into that home, and lived there for the remainder of their lives. They never recorded the 1965 Map, and the county assessor continued to tax the Andersons for the property as a single 1.71-acre parcel. During the next several decades, the home on the lower lot was occupied by various Anderson family members, including their grandson.
In 2004, after both Andersons had died, the Anderson estate initially listed the entire Anderson parcel for sale as a single, 1.7-acre property with two homes (the home built by the Andersons in 1966, and the home on the lower lot built in 1952.). In April 2004, the estate changed the listing to state it was in the " 'process of effecting recordation of division of land to [the upper] parcel at 1.1 acres, and "lower" parcel . . . [a]t .6 acres.' " The estate then hired surveyor William Teas to prepare the metes and bounds descriptions to be used in the grant deed for each parcel. Teas prepared the metes and bounds using the 1965 Map (he was not retained to physically survey the property).
It is undisputed Teas made mathematical errors in preparing the metes and bounds description. As discussed below, instead of making the boundary line 37 feet from the home on the lower parcel, the line reflected in Teas's description came quite close to the lower house, within nine or 10 feet of the front door and cutting through a small portion of the roof.
The deeds using Teas's metes and bounds descriptions were recorded in 2004. Thereafter (and to the present day) the county assessor taxed theupper property as a 1.11-acre parcel and the lower property as a .6-acre parcel. After the division, in 2004, the Anderson estate sold both parcels to a financial entity (U.S. Financial), which then sold the upper lot (1.1-acre parcel) to Roseanne Kemp in about November 2004.
The next year, in 2005, U.S. Financial sold the lower lot (.6-acre parcel) to Tracey Sullivan (who later added her husband Sean to the title). Before purchasing the property, the Sullivans were given a copy of the 1965 Map, which was marked "FINAL" and showed the property line 37 feet from the southwest corner of the house. (See Appendix B, green circle.) The grant deed also referenced the 1965 Map.
At the time, an 8-foot by 8-foot shed and a large propane tank were located in the area within 37 feet of the lower parcel residence. The lower parcel (which sloped down from the upper property) was also cut in such a way "to create a [level] pad" for the house on the lower lot. The building pad for the lower property was marked by a five foot tall cut in the hillside along the then-existing tree line.
Before the purchase, the Sullivans had asked the seller to mark the corners of the property, but the seller refused. However, when the Sullivans walked through the property before the purchase, they observed that the house, the cut and trees, and the placement of the shed and propane tank were fully consistent with the 1965 Map boundaries. Although their realtor recommended a survey, they decided not to retain a surveyor because of the expense and because the 1965 Map appeared to accurately reflect the boundaries of the property.
At the time of their purchase, there was no fence or other physical dividing line separating the two parcels. Soon after their purchase, Mr. Sullivan erected a fence separating the properties. He intended to build thefence where he believed their property line was located as depicted on the 1965 Map, which was 37 feet away from and parallel to their house. To do so, he measured about 37 feet "off the house" and also used the tree line (which was not on the 1965 Map) to determine the proper location of the fence boundary line. He used his footsteps, a measuring tape, the 1965 Map, and the tree line.
As he was doing this, neighbor Kemp approached him and indicated she disagreed with the proposed location because she thought he was installing the fence on her property. She told him she had a survey of her property, but he did not ask to see it and she did not offer to show it to him. She testified she then brought out a lengthy string to help Mr. Sullivan measure and "figure out" where the fence should be placed.
Within days or weeks, Kemp observed "some workers come out and start to put the fence up." When Kemp saw they were putting the fence "a little bit too far up" on her property, she or her son "asked them to move it down a little bit [toward the Sullivan property]." Kemp testified that after the workers complied by moving the fence "a few feet," she was satisfied and had no issue with the fence location. She believed the fence was at or near the property line, but never confirmed this with the survey. She thereafter assumed the fence (which was about 37 feet from the Sullivan home) was the correct dividing line between the properties. The fence appears as the red line on Appendix A.
Soon after the fence was placed, the Sullivans built a room addition on the northern/upper side of the home (but did not obtain a permit for the improvement). (See Appendix A; black circle.) They did so believing that the property line was 37 feet from their house.
In 2010, Kemp sold the upper lot property (resulting from a foreclosure). A third party bought the property, and three years later in August 2013, Chuck and Lynn Sprankles purchased the upper lot property from the third party and/or the third party's successor. Before they purchased the property, the Sprankleses did not conduct a survey. However, shortly after escrow closed, they hired a professional surveyor (Chris Ciremele) to survey the property based on the legal descriptions contained in the Sprankleses' grant deed (containing the Teas metes and bounds description.)
The Ciremele survey disclosed that the property line set forth in the grant deed's metes and bounds description was much closer to the Sullivan's home, and not the 37-foot distance shown in the 1965 Map. As reflected in Appendix A, the Ciremele property line (shown in blue) cuts across a small portion of the Sullivans' room addition and is located within 10 feet of the Sullivans' residence, slicing at an angle that would "nick[ ] the original corner . . . of the original roof" (before the room addition was constructed).
Upon receiving the results of the Ciremele survey, the Sprankleses immediately asserted that the Sullivans were trespassing, demanded the fence be removed/moved, and alternatively that the Sullivans pay the Sprankleses $25,000 to purchase the disputed area. The area within the disputed area (approximately 5,404 square feet) was mostly dirt, trees, and plants, and was used by the Sullivans for their horses, parking their vehicles, and various recreational activities, including for their small child.
When no agreement was reached, the Sprankleses filed a lawsuit against the Sullivans, requesting the court order the Sullivans to remove the fence, cease and desist from continuing their trespass, and pay damages. TheSprankleses alleged four causes of action: (1) quiet title; (2) trespass; (3) nuisance; and (4)...
To continue reading
Request your trial