Berstein v. Sebring

Filed 12/15/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

SCOT BERNSTEIN, C098443

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and (Super. Ct. No. PC20180264) Respondent,

v.

TIM SEBRING,

Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of El Dorado County, Michael J. McLaughlin, Judge. Affirmed.

Thomas & Associates and Michael W. Thomas for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.

Quinn Covarrubias and George E. Murphy for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent.

1

This case proves easements, unlike fences, do not make good neighbors. This appeal is from the second suit between plaintiff Scot Bernstein and defendant Tim Sebring involving a road easement with a gravel road on plaintiff’s property that defendant uses as a driveway to access his property. The parties settled the first case, which involved defendant clearing trees and performing other construction on the easement without plaintiff’s permission. Plaintiff subsequently filed this suit seeking to prohibit defendant from paving the easement’s gravel road. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in this case and then, after a court trial, found in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appeals, alleging the second action constituted an improper splitting of actions and asserting his easement right includes the right to pave the easement’s gravel road. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff and defendant own adjoining properties within the same subdivision. Defendant’s property has an easement on plaintiff’s property for ingress/egress that includes portions of a paved road going through the subdivision over plaintiff’s property and a 244.5 foot “[g]ravel/[d]irt [r]oadway” splitting off the paved road used as a driveway for defendant’s property. In the first case, initiated in 2014, plaintiff’s complaint against defendant and other parties alleged defendant hired a construction company to enter plaintiff’s property without plaintiff’s permission “and perform[] excavation, perform[] construction, cut down trees and remove[] the fallen wood, cut down landscape and other natural features, and use[] [plaintiff’s] native stone to construct a rock wall on [plaintiff’s property].” After a partial settlement between the parties, the trial court entered judgment in October 2018. In May 2018, while the first case was pending, plaintiff filed another complaint against defendant for declaratory relief and a permanent injunction. This complaint alleged defendant informed plaintiff he intended to “immediately pave the [g]ravel/[d]irt