Smith v. Guillosson CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Sep 3, 2024 No. B327837Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court properly denied the motion for acknowledgment of partial satisfaction of judgment because the underlying judgment did not condition the award of compensatory damages on the actual performance of remediation work.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for acknowledgment of partial satisfaction of judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 724.110.
Whether the judgment's award of compensatory damages for remediation costs was subject to a condition precedent requiring the plaintiff to perform the work.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the plain language of the judgment does not require him to do so and does not condition receipt of compensatory damages on the completion of such work.”

“The judgment contains no condition precedent to Smith’s entitlement to those damages.”

“The order denying the motion for acknowledgment of partial satisfaction of the judgment is affirmed.”

Filed 9/3/24 Smith v. Guillosson CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

GREGORY EDWARD SMITH, B327837

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant (Los Angeles County and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 19STCV33506) v.

JEAN-CLAUDE GUILLOSSON et al.,

Defendants, Cross- complainants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge. Affirmed.

Jean-Claude Guillosson and Maureen Mansfield- Guillosson, in pro. per., for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.

Gavrilov & Brooks, Bradley E. Jewett and Michael Coleman for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent. ______________________________

Appellants Jean-Claude Guillosson and Maureen Mansfield-Guillosson (the Guillossons) appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion to compel respondent Gregory Edward Smith (Smith) to execute an acknowledgment of partial satisfaction of the judgment. We affirm. BACKGROUND I. The Underlying Litigation and Judgment Smith and the Guillossons owned adjacent residential properties in the Hollywood Hills, which we refer to respectively as the Smith property and the Guillosson property. A dispute arose regarding the use of two easements—one benefitting the Smith property (the patio easement) and another benefitting the Guillosson property (the walkway easement). Smith sued the Guillossons, and the Guillossons filed a cross-action against Smith. The case proceeded to a bench trial, where Smith prevailed on each of his claims and the cross-claims against him. In October 2021, the trial court entered judgment in Smith’s favor. The judgment awarded Smith a total of $126,500 in compensatory damages, comprised of: (1) $15,000 for the diminution in value to the Smith property and the related loss of use and enjoyment of the patio easement; (2) $8,000 for obtaining and recording an updated property survey and staking the boundaries of the patio easement; (3) $1,500 for the cost of

Smith v. Guillosson CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

GREGORY EDWARD SMITH, B327837

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief