Stell

Stell v. Jay Hales Development Co.

Caution
11 Cal. App. 4th 1214·15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 220·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1466·92 Daily Journal DAR 17090·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10290
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 18, 1992B053699California8,368 words

Opinion

Opinion

Boren, J.

Introduction

Alleging that respondents were constructing a house in violation of covenants, conditions and restrictions, and also in violation of local zoning ordinances, appellants filed a complaint sounding in nuisance and requesting injunctive relief to abate the nuisance, declaratory relief and damages. The trial court denied appellants’ request for a jury trial and, at the conclusion of appellants’ presentation of evidence, granted respondents’ motions for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 and for nonsuit. On appeal, appellants contend that the trial court erred in denying trial by jury and in rendering judgment on the grounds that appellants failed to prove the construction constituted a nuisance. Appellants also contend that the trial court was without jurisdiction to award expert witness fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and that the trial court erred in awarding sanctions against appellants.

Statement of Facts

In 1946, R. P. Harper and his wife, who were doing business as Preston Enterprises (collectively, Preston), subdivided a tract of land in what is now the City of La Canada-Flintridge (the city). In conjunction…

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.