Blake v. Parker CA2/1

Filed 3/27/14 Blake v. Parker CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

KRISTIN BLAKE, B244863

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. SC069583 c/w SC073562) v.

TIMOTHY PARKER et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lisa Hart Cole, Judge. Affirmed. Timothy Parker, in pro. per., and Kerry Parker, in pro per., for Defendants and Appellants. Kristin Blake, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

This is the third appeal (plus one writ proceeding) in a dispute between neighboring property owners concerning certain easements. We again affirm.

BACKGROUND In the most recent appeal in this matter, we summarized the course of proceedings as follows: “Kristin Blake sued Timothy and Kerry Parker concerning the easements, which run across the Parkers’ property. The Parkers cross-complained against their real estate brokers and the previous owners of their property. The parties’ claims were tried to the court, which issued a statement of decision and entered a final judgment. Blake appealed, but the Parkers did not. On appeal, Blake did not challenge the trial court’s specification of the location of any of the easements. Rather, she raised the following four issues: (1) She argued that the trial court erred by determining that one of the easements (the ‘Wallner easement’) had a variable width of no more than 20 feet, when the relevant deed stated that the easement is 20 feet wide. (2) She argued that the trial court erred by not requiring the Parkers to remove various items that impinge on the Wallner easement or impede Blake’s use of the easements. (3) She argued that the trial court erred by permitting the Parkers to maintain gates on the Wallner easement. And (4) she argued that the trial court erred by refusing to award general damages. We agreed with Blake’s first three arguments but rejected the fourth. We accordingly reversed in part and directed the trial court to modify the judgment consistent with our opinion. In all other respects, we affirmed the judgment. (See generally Blake v. Parker (July 28, 2009, B202363) [nonpub. opn.].) “On remand, Blake filed a peremptory challenge against the trial judge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. The challenge was accepted, and the matter was assigned for all purposes to a new judge. “Blake submitted a proposed modified judgment for entry by the court. The Parkers filed objections to Blake’s proposed modified judgment. The Parkers’ central contention was that ‘[t]he Parkers won the appeal and their position has been vindicated,’