198 Cal. App. 4th 764
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hills and LLC own adjacent parcels along US-101 in San Jose; Hills hold a billboard on LLC’s parcel under a 2000 easement; Hills sued LLC in 2007 seeking injunctive relief and damages for alleged obstruction of the billboard’s visibility; trial proceeded in two phases, rejecting illegality defense and interpreting the easement to include viewing rights, leading to a damages award of $778,539 including projected future profits through 2037; post-judgment, LLC moved for a new trial based on a city removal order indicating illegality, which the trial court denied; on appeal, LLC sought to admit new evidence under CCP § 909, which this court denied as improper, but ultimately reversed the judgment and order denying the new trial on damages and remanded for retrial with a stay pending city proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illegality defense to enforcement of easement | Hillforthe easement is enforceable regardless of illegality of billboard | LLC argues the easement is unenforceable due to illegality of the billboard’s construction | Easement enforceable despite illegality allegations |
| Whether easement includes a view/unobstructed visibility right | Hill asserts easement protects billboard visibility | LLC contends no express view easement exists | Easement interpreted to permit billboard visibility view |
| Rule and sufficiency of new-trial based on newly discovered evidence | Hills contend evidence not newly discovered or prejudicial | LLC argues new evidence warrants retrial affecting damages | New-trial motion should have been granted on damages; remand for retrial with stay |
| Damages retrial timing given city removal proceedings | Damages should be retried regardless of city action | Damages should be stayed pending city action | Stay ordered; retrial on damages remanded pending city resolution |
| Admission of new evidence on appeal under CCP § 909 | N/A | New evidence should be admitted to resolve appellate issues | Denied; evidence not dispositive; no judicial notice of contents |
Key Cases Cited
- Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti, 70 Cal.App.4th 1487 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (easement use not barred by illegal structure absent unlawful purpose)
- Baccouche v. Blankenship, 154 Cal.App.4th 1551 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (easement not void where use not prohibited by zoning; illegality of use does not automatically void easement)
- Wayman Inv. Co. v. Wessinger, 13 Cal.App. 108 (Cal. Ct. App. 1910) (view/limits of easements implied by purpose; not strictly private contract)
- Aaker v. Smith, 87 Cal.App.2d 36 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948) (contractual rights may be enforced notwithstanding illegal aspects if not dependent on illegal contract)