Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV24248, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24248    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Cross-Defendants’ motion in the alternative for summary adjudication is also DENIED.

On 6/29/2022, Plaintiff Homayoon Ebrahim-Nehoray (Plaintiff) filed suit against Farzin Aghaipour, Shahla Sassounian, and Pacific Construction (collectively, Defendants). On 6/9/2022, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC) alleging: (1) trespass; and (2) private nuisance.

            On 9/12/2024, Cross-Defendants Homayoon Ebrahim-Nehoray and Homayoon Ebrahim-Nehoray and Farahnaz Nehoray (Cross-Defendants) moved for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of their Cross-Complaint.

Discussion  

            Cross-Defendants argue that the sole remaining cause of action for Interference with Easement alleged therein against Cross-Defendants is without merit. More specifically, Cross-Defendants argue that:

 Cross-Complainants’ Third Cause of Action for Interference with Easement is without merit because Cross-Complainants, each of them, cannot establish that Cross-Defendants’ planting of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping in the Common Driveway Easement jointly held by Cross-Complainants and Cross-Defendants has unreasonable interfered with CrossComplainants’ utilization of the Common Driveway Easement for ingress and egress to the public street from Cross-Complainants’ property, as alleged in the Cross-Complaint

(Motion, 1: 15-20.)

In support, Cross-Defendants submit the following evidence:

-         Nehoray is a homeowner in the Trousdale Estates subdivision in Beverly Hills at 310 Trousdale Place; this property is legally owned by Cross-Defendant HOMAYOON EBRAHIM-NEHORAY AND FARAHNAZ NEHORAY, TRUSTEES OF THE NEHORAY LIVING TRUST UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER 31, 1998 (Nehoray Trust). (SS 1.)

-         Cross-Complainants own the neighboring property located at 320 Trousdale Place, with Cross-Complainant Farzin Aghaipour living at the property. (SS 2.)

-         There is an easement between them for a common use driveway, that was created via grant deed recorded in July 27, 1962 conferring mutual benefit to each property for use of the common driveway established by the easement. (SS 3.)

-         Nehoray has lived at 310 Trousdale since 1997. (SS 4.)

-         Cross-Complainants bought their property in late 2015, at which point they commenced an extensive remodel and reconstruction of the home there, as well as regrading and landscaping the parcel. (SS 5.)

-         The allegedly offending foliage placed in the Common Driveway Easement by Nehoray was already present when Cross-Complainants purchased the 320 Trousdale home, and was in fact there when Cross-Defendants purchased 310 Trousdale. (SS 6.)

-         The complained of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping on the 310 Trousdale side the Common Driveway Easement do not in any way obstruct or prevent Cross-Complainants’ use of the Common Driveway Easement for ingress and egress. (SS 7.)

-         The complained of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping on the 310 Trousdale side the Common Driveway Easement do not protrude past the edge of the gated entryway, which CrossComplainants’ themselves built across the easement, and which itself restricts Cross-Complainants’ point of ingress and egress from their property more than anything else in the Common Driveway Easement. (SS 8.)

-         Cross-Complainant FARZIN AGHAIPOUR stated that the damage he suffered as a result of CrossDefendants’ planting of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping in the Common Driveway Easement, was that it narrowed the common driveway did not permit his driving on the full scope of the common driveway. (SS 9.)

The rights and duties between the owner of an easement and the owner of the servient tenement are correlative; each is required to respect the rights of the other, and neither party can conduct activities or place obstructions on the property that unreasonably interfere with the other party's use of the property. (See Inzana v. Turlock Irrigation Dist. Bd. of Directors (2019) 35 Cal. App. 5th 429.)

The owner of a servient tenement for a nonexclusive easement may make any use of the property that does not unduly interfere with the easement. (See Dunn v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1954) 43 Cal. 2d 265.) Owners of the servient tenement may not use their property in a way that obstructs the normal use of the easement (See Blackmore v. Powell (2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 1593), and any use of the servient estate that results in an unreasonable interference with the easement's purpose is prohibited. (See Dolnikov v. Ekizian (2013) 222 Cal. App. 4th 419.)

Here, Cross-Defendants’ evidence supports a reasonable inference that the complained of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping on the 310 Trousdale side of the Common Driveway Easement do not in any way obstruct or prevent Cross-Complainants’ use of the Common Driveway Easement for ingress and egress.

Accordingly, the burden shifts to Cross-Complainants to disclose a triable issue of material fact.

In opposition, Cross-Complainants submitted evidence to argue the following:

Cross-Complainants have a right to use the entire width of the Driveway Easement. However, the trees, shrubs, and other landscaping have reduced the width of the Driveway Easement. The Driveway Easement is approximately fifteen feet at its entrance and widens to approximately 19.5 feet at the back. The trees, shrubs, and other landscaping on the Driveway Easement spans 3 to 7.5 feet in width on approximately the back half of the Driveway Easement (the “Interference Area”). Thus, for a driveway that is approximately 15 to 19.5 feet wide, Nehoray has obstructed approximately 20% to 38% of the back half of the Driveway Easement.

Moreover, a significant amount of branches and leaves of the large tree have grown over half of the driveway. Currently, at the lowest point, the branches and leaves are a mere six feet above the ground. As a result, large vehicles that drive on that portion of the Driveway Easement, such as UPS or Amazon delivery trucks or UHaul vehicles will hit those branches. For example, the height of a 15’ UHaul delivery truck is 7 feet 2 inches. Based on Cross-Complainants’ understanding, CrossDefendants do not trim the branches on the tree. Thus, as the tree continues to grow, the branches will continue to grow further into the driveway and lower to the ground. Even worse, Cross-Defendants’ Complaint claimed damages against Cross-Complainants because their vehicles allegedly damaged the branches of the tree. However, if branches were not overgrown and hanging over the Driveway Easement, they would not have been damaged.

Moreover, high end property owners in Beverly Hills place importance on a wide driveway. Specifically, they value a driveway with an equivalent character as the main house. Indeed, the driveway adds to the fair market value of the property.

Unfortunately, the Interference Area has significantly reduced the appearance and size of the driveway at 320 Trousdale and consequently, reduced its curb appeal and value.

Lastly, because Nehoray has reduced the width of the Driveway Easement, Aghaipour is unable to plant landscaping on the portion of the driveway that is located on 320 Trousdale, which is not part of the Driveway Easement, without further narrowing the driveway. As a result, Aghaipour is unable to beautify 320 Trousdale. The lack of landscaping on 320 Trousdale further makes it is more difficult for visitors and prospective buyers to recognize the difference between the two properties. Accordingly, Nehoray’s maintenance of landscaping on the Driveway Easement has interfered with Aghaipour’s use of the Driveway Easement and his ability to fully enjoy his own property.

            (See SS.)

            Indeed, the photos submitted by Cross-Complainants could at least support a reasonable inference that Cross-Defendants’ expansion of hedges on the side of their property has caused an unreasonable interference with Cross-Complainants’ right to use the driveway easement. “[A]ppellants may not use their property ‘in a way that obstructs the normal use of the easement.’” (Blackmore v. Powell (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1593, 1599.) “Whether a particular use by the servient owner of land subject to an easement is an unreasonable interference with the rights of the dominant owner is a question of fact for the trier of fact…” (Id.)

            Cross-Complainants’ evidence is sufficient to disclose at least a triable issue. As such, whether or not Cross-Defendants’ use of the easement, in fact, constitutes an unreasonable interference is a question of fact not properly determined here.

            Based on the foregoing, Cross-Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied. Cross-Defendants’ motion in the alternative for summary adjudication is also denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  December    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.