Grosman

INTRODUCTION

Alan and Michelle Grosman1 had an access easement through the property of Masako Kasloff.2 In this consolidated case, the Grosmans sued Kasloff for injunctive relief to remove a planter and retaining wall she built on part of the easement, and for damages for ficus trees and other items of the Grosmans that Kasloff allegedly removed or damaged. Kasloff sued the Grosmans for injunctive relief to trim their ficus trees, which bordered Kasloff’s property, to six feet, in compliance with the Malibu Municipal Code. The trial judge3 bifurcated the case, heard the equitable issues in a bench trial, issued a statement of decision on those issues and scheduled a trial setting conference on the legal issues. Kasloff moved for entry of judgment. A subsequent judge4— different from the one who presided over the trial of the equitable issues and wrote the statement of decision—granted the motion. On appeal, the Grosmans argue: (1) the trial judge erred by denying their claim for injunctive relief regarding Kasloff’s use of the easement, (2) the trial judge erred by finding the Grosmans failed to establish their ficus trees were planted before 1993 and consequently by granting…