Viney v. Grupp

• Decision Date: 19 October 2011
• Docket Number: A121704,A120993,A120208
• Parties: KENNETH VINEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LEAL GRUPP et al., Defendants and Appellants. KENNETH VINEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CYNTHIA GRUPP et al., Defendants and Appellants. KENNETH VINEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUSAN CURTIS, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

KENNETH VINEY, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.LEAL GRUPP et al., Defendants and Appellants.

KENNETH VINEY, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.CYNTHIA GRUPP et al., Defendants and Appellants.

KENNETH VINEY, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.SUSAN CURTIS, Defendant and Appellant.

A120208

A120993

A121704

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

Filed: October 19, 2011

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Napa County Super. Ct. No. 2630185)

(Napa County Super. Ct. No. 2630185)

(Napa County Super. Ct. No. 2630185)

These consolidated appeals stem from a dispute over use of a road easement among landowners of adjacent parcels in rural Napa County. At trial, all but one of appellant Kenneth Viney's causes of action turned on his belief that appellants Susan Curtis, Leal and Cynthia Grupp, and Tranquility Group, LLC had conspired to deprive him of the right to improve an access road across an easement leading to his plannedhome site. After Viney presented his case-in-chief, motions for nonsuit were granted on all conspiracy-based causes of action. On the remaining cause of action for unreasonable interference with his easement, a jury found the Grupps and Tranquility Group liable to Viney for $360,000 in damages. The trial court granted Leal Grupp judgment notwithstanding the verdict and reduced the total damage award to $240,000, but denied Cynthia Grupp and Tranquility Group judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It ordered Viney to pay part of Curtis's attorney fees, but denied any fee award to the Grupps and Tranquility Group because it found that Viney was the prevailing party in his action against them.

On appeal from the judgment, the Grupps and Tranquility Group raise various challenges to the finding of unreasonable interference with Viney's easement. Viney cross-appeals, contending that the trial court erred in excluding evidence, in granting motions for nonsuit on his conspiracy-based causes of action and in entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Leal Grupp. (Case no. A120208.)

In their appeal from the order denying their motion for attorney fees, the Grupps and Tranquility Group argue that they were prevailing parties on many causes of action and thus were contractually entitled to attorney fees for them. (Case no. A120993.) In the third appeal, Viney challenges the order requiring him to pay part of Curtis's attorney fees. Curtis cross-appeals, contending that the trial court erred by awarding her less than her full request for attorney fees. (Case no. A121704.)

We conclude that the trial court properly granted nonsuit on the conspiracy-based claims and properly granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict to Leal Grupp. We uphold the jury verdict finding Cynthia Grupp and Tranquility Group liable for unreasonable interference with easement, but remand for a limited retrial on the issue of damages for that interference. We reverse the order denying attorney fees to Tranquility Group and the Grupps and remand that issue to the trial court for consideration after the limited retrial on damages for unreasonable interference with easement is complete. We affirm the Curtis attorney fees order.

I. FACTS

A. The Properties

In 1998, Kenneth and Susan Viney¹ bought 36 acres of unimproved real property off Soda Canyon Road in Napa County. A year later, Susan and Lonen Curtis² purchased an adjacent, unimproved parcel for $440,000. The Viney parcel was landlocked, with access to Soda Canyon Road by means of an express easement burdening the Curtis parcel. An unpaved road ran 800 to 1,000 feet across the Curtises' property, starting at Soda Canyon Road, crossing a stone bridge over a creek and running onto the Viney parcel.

The Vineys and the Curtises hoped to build residences on their respective parcels, both of which commanded splendid views of the surrounding rural area. The steep topography of the sites raised challenges to these plans. The prime building sites on the Curtis and Viney parcels overlooked an existing home occupied by Leal and Cynthia Grupp, raising the specter of view intrusion. The Grupps had lived on their two adjacent parcels for more than 25 years before the Curtises and the Vineys purchased their land.

Viney was not a licensed contractor, but had worked for many years in the construction business. He sought to minimize his development costs by doing much of the construction work himself, rather than by hiring a licensed contractor. Because he had the right to an easement adjacent to his property, he believed that he was entitled to work on that easement without the need for a licensed contractor.

B. History of Neighborhood Disputes

Property owners in this area have had various disputes with one another over many years' time. Some of these disputes were litigated to resolve underlying property-related issues. We review the disputes most pertinent to the issues posed in this appeal.

1. Location of Easement

Initially, it was assumed that the unpaved road on the Curtis parcel coincided with the location of Viney's recorded easement. In fact, by 2002, it was clear that the recorded easement crossed onto land owned by the Grupps and other neighbors who are not parties to this action. Both the location and the width of the Viney easement have been plagued by lot line disputes among the various neighbors. Attempts to sort out these issues have met with limited success.

Viney's plans to develop his parcel depended on his right to an access easement that met county standards. If his recorded easement was relocated completely onto the Curtis parcel, he believed that the lot line issues could be resolved and his easement could be widened enough to provide legal access to the site of his planned residence.

2. Proposed Curtis-Viney Land Swap

In 2000, Viney sought to add a knoll on the Curtises' parcel to his planned building site. He told the Curtises that the steep topography leading to the knoll from their lot would make it impossible to build a road that would access a home there. However, he believed that he could access the knoll from his property, because the topography of his parcel near their knoll was less steep. He persuaded the Curtises that an exchange of small pieces of their parcels would be in their mutual interest. Viney would acquire part of their knoll and the Curtises would receive a part of his property that was thought to be more suitable for growing grapes. In August 2000, the Curtises and Viney signed a letter agreeing to make this land swap. After obtaining this letter, Viney filed a lis pendens against the Curtis parcel, effectively barring them from selling it.

3. Curtis-Viney Access Improvement

Meanwhile, the Curtises and Viney had agreed that the unpaved road had to be improved before either could obtain occupancy permits for the residences they hoped to build on their respective parcels. They agreed to split the cost of road improvements. In April 2000, Viney obtained county approval to grade the dirt road across both parcels and in the fall of 2000, he began doing the work, which involved some blasting.

Adjacent neighbors who were involved in the lot line dispute with Viney believed that the road work had been done in an improper manner, rendering the road unstable. One proposed solution was to build a retaining wall at the same time that the roadbed was stabilized. As the lot line issue arose, concerns about the proposed lot line adjustment and the retaining wall became intertwined.

The Curtises made a few payments to Viney for their half of the cost of the roadwork, but by January 2001, they became concerned that his work rendered unsafe the stone bridge that sat on their property. Fearing that they would be liable for any damage resulting from his work, the Curtises instructed Viney not to do any more work without their permission.³ They raised their concerns with county officials, complaining that Viney had not used a licensed contractor to perform the work. The Curtises and the Grupps both contacted state Department of Fish and Game officials about potential creek pollution resulting from his work.

When Viney obtained an amended permit from local officials to improve the road and the bridge, the Curtises appealed that decision to the county board of supervisors. Viney was unable to work on the project until the appeal was resolved. The board imposed additional conditions of approval for the bridge work in September 2003. These conditions required Viney to pay $12,500 for an engineering study of the structural integrity of the bridge and its proposed design changes. If the independent engineer identified corrective actions, the county required Viney to make them. The board also concluded that state law required Viney to have the work performed by a licensed contractor.

4. Grupp-Viney Litigation

Twice before the action underlying this appeal, the Grupps had sued Viney. The first—a property line dispute—was settled in November 2001. In the course of Viney'swork, he encroached on the Grupps' property, removing soil and vegetation. On the basis of this encroachment, the Grupps brought a second action against Viney, seeking to quiet title to the disputed portion of land and to obtain damages for trespass. During the course of the litigation, Viney stated that he did not see the wooden surveyor's stakes that had been placed at 100-foot intervals marking the Grupp property line. A judgment for $10,000⁴ was given for the Grupps, who were declared to be the sole owners of the disputed property. Viney's encroachment was characterized as reckless, but unintentional. On his appeal, that judgment was affirmed. (Grupp v. Viney (Aug. 23, 2005, A106917) [nonpub....