Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Ass'n v. McMullin
4 Cal. App. 5th 982
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Association (homeowners association) owns lots 273 and 274 (common area). McMullins purchased a home abutting those lots and built a new retaining wall, sports court, and related improvements that in fact sit mostly on lot 274 (over ~6,100 sq ft).
- McMullins repeatedly submitted site plans to the association that failed to show the rear property line; their plans included an unlabeled dashed line that approximated the true rear line. The association denied prior applications and required a licensed surveyor plan.
- McMullins obtained a city building permit and constructed the wall without written approval from the association; after construction the association discovered the wall encroached on its land. McMullins later spent ~$20,000 to implement a screening/landscaping plan after the association’s board voted not to pursue a CC&R violation while encouraging screening.
- The city later informed both parties the wall was entirely on the association’s property and either must be removed or be brought into compliance with city requirements and association approval.
- Nellie Gail sued to quiet title and for an injunction to remove the improvements; McMullins cross-complained asserting adverse possession or an equitable/prescriptive easement. After a bench trial the court quieted title for Nellie Gail, ordered removal and restoration at the McMullins’ expense, and later awarded attorney fees to Nellie Gail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nellie Gail) | Defendant's Argument (McMullins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable estoppel / statute of limitations as defenses to quiet title | Nellie Gail contends its board never intended to extinguish its rights and thus defenses are unproven | McMullins argue association’s post-construction communications and board vote estop it from suing and that statute of limitations bars the claim | Forfeited at trial (not pursued); alternatively, even on the merits estoppel fails—McMullins knew facts and concealed property line, and association lacked full knowledge when it voted; statute of limitations defense forfeited |
| Adverse possession (including tax-payment element) | Association argues adverse possession fails because McMullins did not pay taxes on disputed area | McMullins argue lot 274 had no value/taxes levied on it and thus they were excused from paying taxes | Adverse possession fails: statutory five-year adverse-possession requires taxes paid or proof no taxes were levied; substantial evidence indicates lot 274 was part of common-area assessment scheme (tax burden borne via owners) and taxes were levied/assessed |
| Injunctive relief vs equitable easement (balancing of conveniences) | Association seeks mandatory injunction ordering removal; contends McMullins not innocent encroachers | McMullins ask for equitable easement or monetary damages given cost and hardship of removal; they point to association’s prior conduct/late approval of screening | Court did not abuse discretion in granting injunction: McMullins were not innocent (willful/knowing failure to show rear line and built without required approvals); absent innocence, equitable easement unavailable; injunction appropriate |
| Appealability of postjudgment attorney-fees award | Association obtained fees after judgment and then had an amended judgment restating fees | McMullins argue their notice of appeal encompassed the fees award because original judgment referenced fees to be inserted later | Appellate court lacks jurisdiction over fee award: fees were awarded postjudgment and McMullins did not separately appeal that order; narrow Grant exception inapplicable because entitlement and amount were decided postjudgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Acquired II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate Group, 213 Cal.App.4th 959 (Cal. Ct. App.) (failure to request statement of decision leads to doctrine of implied findings)
- Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc., 150 Cal.App.4th 42 (Cal. Ct. App.) (appellate review of bench trial factual findings)
- Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton, 61 Cal.2d 855 (Cal. 1964) (landowner generally entitled to mandatory injunction against encroachment)
- Shoen v. Zacarias, 237 Cal.App.4th 16 (Cal. Ct. App.) (equitable easement and balancing-of-conveniences framework)
- Hagman v. Meher Mount Corp., 215 Cal.App.4th 82 (Cal. Ct. App.) (tax-exemption circumstances excusing tax-payment element for adverse possession)
- Gilardi v. Hallam, 30 Cal.3d 317 (Cal. 1981) (burden on adverse possessor to prove taxes paid or not levied)
- Colony Hill v. Ghamaty, 143 Cal.App.4th 1156 (Cal. Ct. App.) (appealability: separate appeal required for postjudgment fee order)
- Grant v. List & Lanthrop, 2 Cal.App.4th 993 (Cal. Ct. App.) (limited exception when original judgment adjudicates fee entitlement and leaves amount for later determination)