Baugh

Baugh v. Garl

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 737·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 334·2006 Daily Journal DAR 3038·40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 539
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 13, 2006B176714California3,529 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Parties litigate their dispute over water rights despite a settlement agreement signed years earlier. The trial court resolves the dispute by enjoining the defendant from tapping into plaintiffs’ pipeline that carries water to plaintiffs’ property. Because the action is one in equity, defendant is not entitled to a jury trial. Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees because they sought to enforce the settlement agreement, which contains an attorney fees clause. We affirm.

FACTS

Jeanette Keiper, as trustee for her family trust, is the owner of a 20-acre parcel of property near Goleta. Jason and Sylvia Baugh are Keiper’s tenants. Keiper’s parcel is served by a water line from Strawberry Spring (hereafter pipeline). The pipeline is the sole source of water for the parcel. The pipeline runs through an easement over a parcel owned by Keith Garl.

In 1989, Keiper’s predecessors in interest brought an action against Garl alleging he was unlawfully taking water from the pipeline. The parties settled the action in 1990. Under the settlement agreement, Garl agreed not to take any more water from the pipeline. The agreement expressly provided it would bind and inure to the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.