Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: BC697640, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC697640    Hearing Date: January 17, 2024    Dept: 61

Defendant Ronald B. Hasson’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is therefore DENIED.

I.                Motion to vacate judgment

A judgment or decree, when based upon a decision by the court, or the special verdict of a jury, may, upon motion of the party aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and different judgment entered, for either of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a different judgment:

1. Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts; and in such case when the judgment is set aside, the statement of decision shall be amended and corrected.

2. A judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 663.)

“[S]ection 663 is a remedy to be used when a trial court draws incorrect conclusions of law or renders an erroneous judgment on the basis of uncontroverted evidence.” (Simac Design, Inc. v. Alciati (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 146, 153.) Section 663 “does not authorize . . . additional findings.” (Knapp v. City of Newport Beach (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 669, 682.)

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Ronald Hasson (Defendant) seeks an order vacating the judgment entered on December 1, 2023, and entering a new judgment with the following amendments: finding in favor of Defendant’s cause of action for trespass alleged in the cross-complaint; removing all damages awarded to Plaintiff Robert P. Carreon (Plaintiff) for damage to the driveway wall; removing all damages for plants; removing treble damages for the plants; and awarding no damages for gate repair. (Motion at pp. 3–10.)

Defendant’s argument as to his trespass cause of action in the cross-complaint is as follows. Defendant notes that his claim for trespass arose from Plaintiff’s sewer line crossing his property. (Motion at p. 3.) And this court found that no easements claimed by either party existed, meaning that this court found no easement for Plaintiff’s sewer line across Defendant’s property. (Motion at pp. 3–4.) Thus Defendant argues that the judgment should be revised to find the cause of action in his favor, and to enter damages in the amount of $150,000.00 for the replacement and rerouting of Plaintiff’s sewer line. (Motion at p. 4.)

This argument is unpersuasive. Section 663 does not permit the making of additional findings after judgment is entered. (Knapp, supra, 186 Cal.App.2d at p. 682.) There is thus no basis for the court to amend the judgment to incorporate a damages finding not already made. Moreover, Defendant identifies no evidence that he has suffered damages from the sewer line within the three-year limitations period for trespass. (Code Civ. Proc. § 338.) Finally, there is no reason to believe that Defendant, rather than Plaintiff, would bear the $150,000 cost of rerouting Plaintiff’s sewer line.

Defendant’s argument as to the $44,420.58 awarded against him, representing 25% of the cost for repairing the damaged driveway wall, is also unpersuasive. Defendant argues that these damages are calculated for a new retaining wall with different features than the original, rather than the wall as it existed prior to Defendant’s grading of his yard. (Defendant at pp. 4–6.) But this court found, based on expert testimony, that Defendant’s piling of soil near the wall was a contributing factor to the wall’s damage, which was showing signs of probable failure. The additional features that Defendant decries are features which are reasonably necessary to maintain the wall intact against the soil placed there in large part by Defendant. Cost of repair is a legitimate measure of damage. (See Rovetti v. City and County of San Francisco (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 973, 978.) Defendant is justly liable for damages incurred rebuilding the wall when his actions made rebuilding the wall necessary.

Defendant’s argument against treble damages is also unpersuasive. Treble damages are permitted “[f]or wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood upon the land of another . . . except that where the trespass was casual or involuntary,” or the injurer had probable cause to believe the land was their own. (Civ. Code § 3346, subd. (a).) Although Defendant argues that this court found against an award of punitive damages, the absence of malice or oppression under Civil Code § 3294 does not mean that the conduct is inadvertent or casual. (Opposition at pp. 6–7.) Defendant’s argument as to the lack of evidence supporting the value of the plants at issue is also unpersuasive, as the damages in question were supported by the testimony of Plaintiff’s arborist expert. Defendant’s argument as to the insufficiency of this evidence is not a basis for relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 663. Defendant’s final argument as to the $733.63 charged for damages to Plaintiff’s gate also sounds exclusively in the weight to be afforded to the evidence presented by Plaintiff’s repair estimate, and furnishes no basis for relief.

The motion is therefore DENIED.