Chan v. Wei CA2/2

Filed 5/29/14 Chan v. Wei CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

TONY CHAN et al., B242484 (c/w B245956) Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and (Los Angeles County Respondents, Super. Ct. No. GC041110)

v.

ZHONG LIN WEI et al.,

Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John P. Doyle, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Shun C. Chen and Shun C. Chen for Defendants, Cross- complainants and Appellants.

A.H. Chan Law Firm, Alfred H. Chan and Ricardo Y. Merluza for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents.

________________________

This litigation arises out of a dispute between neighbors over a property line. Defendants, cross-complainants, and appellants Zhong Lin Wei and Min Liang contend that they established all elements to support their claim to an easement over the strip of land between the two properties. Plaintiffs, cross-defendants, and respondents Tony Chan and King T. Chan argue that the trial court rightly determined that defendants are not entitled to an easement. Because substantial evidence supports the judgment, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Strip of Land Plaintiffs and defendants are neighbors; the north side of plaintiffs’ property borders the south side of defendants’ property. A wooden fence borders both properties. It existed before plaintiffs purchased their property in 1992, and no one knows who built it. At issue in this litigation is a strip of land, which is bordered by the wooden fence, between the two properties. At some point, plaintiffs began building a cinderblock wall that rests on the property line between the parcels. The Pleadings In an attempt to figure out who owned the strip of land, plaintiffs initiated litigation. They theorize that defendants encroached upon their property and converted plaintiffs’ land to their own use without consent. Their third amended complaint alleges claims for quiet title, injunctive relief, unjust enrichment and constructive trust, trespass to land, and private nuisance. Defendants answered the third amended complaint and filed a cross-complaint. Their first amended cross-complaint, the operative pleading, seeks an order granting prescription or equitable easement. It appears that plaintiffs never answered the first amended cross-complaint. Settlement Attempts The parties participated in court-ordered mediation. Following mediation, defendants brought a motion to enforce settlement. They asserted that the parties had