Dilday

Dilday v. Jones CA5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 2022F077682California3,583 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

The plaintiffs in this action are Mary Ann Ferrero, Tanna Dilday, and Russell Dilday. Tanna is Ferrero’s daughter and Tanna and Russell are married.

Subsequent references to a numbered “Rule” are to the California Rules of Court.

2. The defendants and cross-complainants are Mikal Alex Jones, his spouse Angela Anderson, and Bi-Rite Auto Transport, Inc., a California corporation (Bi-Rite). The corporate shares of Bi-Rite are owned by a family trust established by Jones’s grandparents. At the time of trial, Jones was the trustee and sole beneficiary of the trust and held all the corporate offices of Bi-Rite, except the office of corporate secretary held by Anderson. The cross-defendants are plaintiffs and Pleasant Valley Canal Company, a California corporation (“Canal Company”). Canal Company’s predecessor was organized in 1888. Canal Company is a mutual water company formed on December 19, 1924, with the issuance of 150 shares. Canal Company delivers water to its shareholders using a canal or ditch that is eight miles long. The facts defining the parties’ real estate and water rights are not material to our decision that the appeal was filed late. Therefore, those…

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.