Salazar v. Matejcek
199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 705
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- The Salazar family owned an undeveloped 10-acre parcel used for recreation; Matejcek bought an adjacent 20-acre parcel in 2007.
- Matejcek constructed a road, gate, fence, culverts, water tanks and irrigation lines that encroached on Salazars’ land, removed trees, and used their spring/water for marijuana cultivation.
- Plaintiffs discovered the encroachments in 2010, hired a surveyor, and sued (quiet title, encroachment, trespass, timber removal, injunctive relief).
- Trial court awarded $39,600 for encroachment (based on rental value), $67,500 for tree restoration trebled to $202,500 under trebled-damages statutes, mandatory injunctive relief to remove improvements and restore grade, and other relief; attorney fees and punitive damages were denied.
- Both parties appealed; Court of Appeal affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations and measure of encroachment damages | Salazar argued damages measured by reasonable rental value (court used $55/day) and claim timely as alleged 2010 encroachment | Matejcek argued claim barred by 3‑year statute (road built 2008) and damages excessive given small physical footprint | Statute of limitations defense forfeited for failure to plead; rental-value award supported by substantial evidence because Matejcek used water and other parts of the property beyond the road |
| Treble damages for removal of trees | Plaintiffs sought restoration costs and trebling under Civ. Code §3346/Code Civ. Proc. §733 because conduct was willful/malicious | Matejcek argued restoration award unsupported and trebling excessive | Restoration cost measure permissible under "personal reason" exception; substantial evidence of personal value and reasonableness; trial court did not abuse discretion in trebling damages given deliberate conduct |
| Mandatory injunction to remove improvements and restore roadway (and election of remedies) | Plaintiffs sought mandatory injunction to restore grade and permit remediation so restoration planting could succeed | Matejcek argued injunction was unpled or barred by plaintiffs’ election of damages at trial | Plaintiffs adequately pleaded injunctive relief; trial court reasonably exercised equitable discretion—injunction appropriate given willfulness and need for soil remediation to effect restoration |
| Exclusion of soil-remediation estimate and attorney fees/emotional distress | Plaintiffs argued the $95,000 contractor estimate should be admitted and attorney fees recoverable as costs of recovering possession; sought emotional distress damages | Matejcek objected to hearsay and opposed fees; emotional damages were not pleaded as a separate cause | Trial court properly excluded contractor estimate because the witness (arborist) lacked soil‑remediation expertise and would have relayed hearsay; attorney fees not authorized by statute; emotional‑distress damages unavailable where not separately pleaded and plaintiffs did not occupy the property |
Key Cases Cited
- Toscano v. Greene Music, 124 Cal.App.4th 685 (discusses standard of review for damages and appellate deference to trial court)
- Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc., 179 Cal.App.4th 442 (limits annoyance/discomfort damages to plaintiffs actually occupying the property)
- Heninger v. Dunn, 101 Cal.App.3d 858 (allows restoration-cost damages where plaintiff has personal reason to restore)
- Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. Hatton, 61 Cal.2d 855 (equitable discretion to deny injunction where encroachment innocent and damages adequate)
- Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc., 35 Cal.3d 564 (presumption of defendant’s knowledge where conduct is wilful)
- Phillips v. Isham, 111 Cal.App.2d 537 (injunction available to remove encroachments between adjoining landowners)
- Orndorff v. Christiana Community Builders, 217 Cal.App.3d 683 (reasonableness limitation on restoration costs relative to property value)
- Drewry v. Welch, 236 Cal.App.2d 159 (treble/double damages framework for timber trespass statutes)
- Martin v. Van Bergen, 209 Cal.App.4th 84 (statute-of-limitations defense must be properly pleaded)
- That v. Alders Maintenance Assn., 206 Cal.App.4th 1419 (statutory attorney fees must be expressly authorized)