Wang v. Peletta
A169968
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 27, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Wang and Young constructed a 295-foot retaining wall, along with other improvements, on what they believed was their property in the late 1990s, without a permit or survey.
- Peter Peletta bought the neighboring property in 2013; a 2018 survey revealed that much of the wall encroached on his property.
- The County cited Peletta for code violations related to the encroaching, unpermitted wall.
- Wang and Young sued, claiming quiet title based on prescriptive and equitable easement, and for defamation; Peletta cross-complained for quiet title and trespass.
- The trial court excluded evidence of prescriptive easement, denied equitable easement, and excluded most alleged defamatory statements under privilege. Judgment was for Peletta, ordering plaintiffs to remove the wall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Prescriptive Easement | Their long, open use supports a prescriptive easement claim | No prescriptive easement can arise from a public nuisance (unpermitted use) | No prescriptive easement; wall is a public nuisance |
| Equitable Easement | Encroachment was innocent based on mistaken boundary | Plaintiffs were not innocent; they knew or should have known permits required | Encroachment was not innocent; no equitable easement |
| Exclusion of Defamation Evidence | Statements to neighbor were not privileged, included actionable defamation | Communications were privileged as part of official proceeding | Most statements privileged; others nonactionable opinion |
| Forwarding Email to Neighbor | Forwarding privileged statements to third party defeats privilege | Neighbor was involved in official proceedings; privilege applies | Privilege not defeated due to neighbor’s involvement |
Key Cases Cited
- Strong v. Sullivan, 180 Cal. 331 (Cal. 1919) (no prescriptive right to maintain a public nuisance)
- Zack’s, Inc. v. City of Sausalito, 165 Cal.App.4th 1163 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (public nuisances cannot be legalized by time; abatement not time-barred)
- Shoen v. Zacarias, 237 Cal.App.4th 16 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (elements of equitable easement; hardship and innocence required)
- Hirshfield v. Schwartz, 91 Cal.App.4th 749 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (discretion in granting equitable easement; innocent encroachment standard)
- Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (Cal. 1990) (litigation privilege for communications in official proceedings)