Vanderpol v. Starr
194 Cal. App. 4th 385
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dispute between Starrs and Vanderpols over trees along their common border affecting view and privacy.
- Vanderpols sue in 2009 asserting private nuisance under §841.4 (spite fence) and ordinary nuisance claims, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.
- Special verdict found Starrs maliciously maintained trees >10 feet to annoy Vanderpols; causation found for harm.
- Jury found no nuisance under ordinary nuisance theory and awarded $57,000 past economic loss; none for noneconomic loss.
- Trial court issued injunction prohibiting trees above 15 feet 9 inches for 30 days; court held no damages were due.
- Appellate court reverses and remands for new trial, concluding injury to comfort/enjoyment under §841.4 was not proved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a row of trees be a structure in the nature of a fence under §841.4? | Vanderpols rely on Wilson v. Handley authority. | Starrs argue trees may not constitute structure; defense cites open questions. | Yes; a row of trees can be a structure under §841.4. |
| Was there injury to Vanderpols’ comfort or enjoyment required by §841.4? | Jury findings imply injury from nuisance. | Injury not proven; relief improper without injury finding. | Injury to comfort/enjoyment not established; requires specific finding. |
| Did the special verdict adequately determine injury under §841.4? | Question Nos. 1–2 establish liability and injury. | Question No. 2 addresses causation, not injury; mishandled verdict. | Special verdict defective for not addressing injury finding. |
| Did damages or abatement under nuisance laws exist absent injury finding? | Damages/abatement authorized by §841.4 with jury findings. | No injury finding means no abatement or damages under §841.4. | No relief under §841.4 due to lack of injury finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Handley, 97 Cal.App.4th 1301 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (row of trees near boundary can be a fence or structure under §841.4)
- Kalway v. City of Berkeley, 151 Cal.App.4th 827 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (nuisance framework informs interpretation of §841.4)
- City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton San Diego Holding Co., Inc., 126 Cal.App.4th 668 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (special verdict mechanics and nuisance abatement guidance)
- Longshore v. County of Ventura, 25 Cal.3d 14 (Cal. 1979) (injury requirement governs abatement and remedies)
- Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863 (Cal. 1995) (statutory interpretation framework; plain meaning governs if unambiguous)
- Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. Hunt, 47 Cal.4th 381 (Cal. 2009) (statutory interpretation and purpose-based analysis)
- City of San Diego v. D.R. Horton San Diego Holding Co., Inc., 126 Cal.App.4th 668 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (duplicate for emphasis on verdict structure)