Easement Dispute Produced Mixed Result, Likely More Pro-Plaintiffs In Nature.
This one involved a water well easement dispute by adjoining owners, prompting a suit by plaintiffs when defendant locked the pump house and put up a “no trespassing” sign. The lower court ultimately upheld plaintiffs’ right to use of some water from the well, but denied a defense request to determine she was the prevailing party—expressly determining each side should bear their/her respective costs and fees. The defense appealed this denial in Strohl v. MacElroy, Case No. A137928 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 26, 2014) (unpublished).
The first consideration was jurisdictional—was the defense barred because it only appealed the judgment with “no costs/fees” language rather than the subsequent order expressly denying the fee request? No, because the judgment was unequivocal in determining prevailing party status, so appeal from the original judgment sufficed. (Grant v. List & Lathrop, 2 Cal.App.4th 993, 997-998 (1992).)
On the merits, however, the defense did not prevail. In this one, plaintiffs unquestionably prevailed on the access to water issue and the defense did not decidedly win on how much well water should be allocated to plaintiffs. Because the defense was not a “clear winner,” the lower court did not err by refusing to rule she was the prevailing party for purposes of Civil Code section 1717 fee recovery under a fees clause in the easement agreement.
Posted with Blogsy