Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: YC071859, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: YC071859    Hearing Date: May 16, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿ 

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 May 16, 2024 

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                   YC071859

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Jacob DeWitt v. David Joseph Burton, et al. 

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff, Jacon DeWitt

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendants, David Joseph Burton and Sandee Burton, husband and wife as Trustees of the 2008 Burton Family Trust

DISPOSED OF DATE:          October 4, 2023

¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Objection to Proposed Judgment

¿ 

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) Granted in part

¿ 

I. BACKGROUND¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿ 

¿¿ 

            On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff, Jacob DeWitt (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants, David Joseph Burton, Sandee Burton, husband and wife as Trustees of the 2008 Burton Family Trust, and DOES 1 through 20. On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action: (1) Ejectment; (2) Trespass; (3) Declaratory Relief; and (4) Slander.

            Plaintiff notes in his moving papers that on July 17 through July 19, and on July 21, 2023, this Court conducted a bench trial in this matter. Plaintiff notes that Defendants requested, and the Court granted leave to file a supplemental trial brief by Monday, July 24, 2024, at which point the case was deemed under submission for decision. The Court issued a tentative decision on the matter. On October 4, 2023, this Court issued a tentative decision after the bench trial, in favor of Plaintiff on the declaratory relief and trespass causes of action, that the ejectment cause of action was mooted by the parties’ stipulation, and in favor of Defendants on the slander of title cause of action.

            Plaintiff filed an objection to the tentative decision which was never set or calendared for ruling until Plaintiff’s ex parte application to do so.

B. Procedural¿

On October 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Tentative Decision. Because of internal clerical error at the court, the objections were not calendared, set for hearing, or ruled upon in timely fashion.  On April 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an order to set a hearing on Plaintiff’s objections and proposals to the Court’s tentative decision, or alternatively, for a court ruling on Plaintiff’s objections and proposals to the Court’s tentative decision. On April 29, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition brief to the ex parte motion.

On April 30, 2024, this Court set the hearing for May 16, 2024.

On  May 9, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. On May 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS¿ 

¿                                                                                

Here, Plaintiff has filed an Objection to Tentative Decision after Bench Trial and Proposed Statement of Decision. Plaintiff notes that he takes issue with this Court’s determination that the cause of action for ejectment had been mooted by virtue of the parties’ stipulation as to the fences, stairs, and handrail. Plaintiff contends that on page 29, lines 15-18, the Court made it clear that as a condition of determining that the ejectment claim is mooted, the Burtons shall remove the encroachments prior to the end of the year. However, Plaintiff noted that his concern is that if a Judgment had been entered prior to December 31, 2023, and the Burtons failed to remove the encroachments, Plaintiff was concerned the Court may be barred from “modifying” the judgment already entered.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1590(g), “[a]ny party may, within 15 days after the proposed statement of decision and judgment have been served, serve and file objections to the proposed statement of decision or judgment.” The PSOD was filed and served by mail on October 4, 2023.  The Plaintiff’s objections were filed on October 20, 2023, within the 15-day period as extended by service of the PSOD by mail.  Because of a clerical error, the objections were not addressed in 2023, which raises the Burtons’ concern that the Court imposed a year-end deadline for performance of the stipulated encroachment removal that has long since passed.  Neither side brought the clerical issue to the Court’s attention until months later, so the Court set a hearing to address each of the sides’ issues with the PSOD and the December 31, 2023 compliance date.  The Court will take oral argument on these issues, but tentatively would rule as follows:

1.     Mr. Dewitt’s objection to the mistaken reference to Colt Road as a public rather than a private road should be corrected in a final SOD, the Burtons having not quarreled with that reference in their opposition;

2.     Mr. Dewitt’s objection to the mistaken reference to his pro rata share of maintenance expenses should be corrected in the final SOD to 1/9 rather than 1/8; and

3.     The PSOD’s reference to December 31, 2023 as a deadline for removal of the encroachments should be amended to June 30, 2024 in light of the passage of time, and a proviso should be added to the final SOD that if the Burtons fail to remove the encroachments from Mr. Dewitt’s property by that date – unless a stay of enforcement of that condition is entered by this Court or the appellate court – then Mr. Dewitt shall be entitled to arrange for the encroachment removal himself at a cost not to exceed $1,000 which would then be chargeable against the Burtons.