Trespass Claims Were Brought Only For The Purpose Of Recovering Attorney Fees To Which Cross-Complainant Would Otherwise Not Be Entitled As Their Lawsuit Was, At Its Core, A Quiet Title Action To Settle A Boundary Dispute.
Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.9 allows for the recovery or reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action to recover damages to personal or real property resulting from trespassing on lands either under cultivation or intended/used for the raising of livestock.
In Cal. Artichoke and Vegetable Growers v. Larson, Case No. E074267 (4th Dist., Div. 2 January 7, 2022) (unpublished), owners of adjoining agricultural properties got into a boundary line dispute. Plaintiffs filed an action seeking declaratory relief regarding the boundary line, and defendants cross-complained for the same, but also alleged a trespass cause of action related to a 1,300 foot long grape stake fence plaintiffs put up 25 feet into defendants’ property. After defendants successfully moved for summary adjudication on the boundary issue, a jury trial was held on the trespass issue – with the jury finding in plaintiffs’ favor, that they had not intentionally entered or caused another person to enter defendants’ property. Subsequently, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to the trespass claim, but denied it as to damages. Instead a separate bench trial was held on the issue of damages – with the trial court awarding tenant defendant nominal damages of $36.
However, for several reasons, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to recover $451,830.50 in section 1021.9 attorney fees. First, the trial court concluded that an award of actual damages, not nominal damages, was required. Second, it found defendants only pursued the trespass claims as a means of obtaining attorney’s fees because the lawsuits were essentially seeking declaratory relief for a boundary line dispute, and that such "bootstrapping" would be contrary to the intent of section 1021.9. Third, it determined that $451,830.50 in fees was “outrageous and not reasonably incurred,” given that no actual damages were proven. Fourth, the trial court concluded that defendants failed to prove the trespass occurred on “lands under cultivation,” which is required for an award of attorney’s fees under § 1021.9.
On appeal, defendant failed to address the trial court’s conclusion that defendants’ cross-complaint was a quiet title boundary line dispute - not an action to recover for damages to real property resulting from trespassing that would be entitled to fee recovery under section 1021.9. As a result, defendant forfeited that argument, and the 4/2 DCA could not reverse even if the trial court erred in one of the other reasons it cited because an appellate court cannot reverse, where a trial court has given multiple reasons for its ruling, unless the appellant demonstrates error as to each reason given. (People v. JTH Tax, Inc., 212 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1237 (2013).)
Comments