Capogeannis

Capogeannis v. Superior Court

Good Law
12 Cal. App. 4th 668·15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 796·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 37·93 Daily Journal DAR 830·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 434
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 19, 1993H010220California5,496 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

In 1984 William and Kathleen Capogeannis bought land from William and Rita Spence. At the time of the purchase the Capogeannises did not know that there were underground fuel storage tanks on the land, or that the tanks had leaked and had contaminated soil and groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons, but by early December 1987 the Capogeannises were fully aware of the contamination and of their responsibility, as the current landowners, for cleaning it up. In December 1990 the Capogeannises sued the Spences and Tri-Pallet, Inc., a long-term tenant on the land, on several broadly pleaded theories including nuisance, trespass, and a right to indemnification, to recover their cleanup costs and for related damages. Respondent superior court granted the Spences’ motion for summary adjudication that the Capogeannises’ nuisance and trespass theories (among others) were barred by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to “[a]n action for trespass upon or injury to real property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (b); cf. id. § 437c, subd. (f); City of Emeryville v. Superior Court (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 21, 25 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 826 ].).

By writ petition (Code Civ. Proc., §…

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.