Martin v. Cristodore CA3

Filed 8/28/15 Martin v. Cristodore CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

DONALD MARTIN et al., C075809

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 06AS00279)

v.

THEODORE CRISTODORE et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Protracted litigation surrounds a fence on the boundary between land owned by plaintiffs Donald and Jacqueline Martin and land owned by defendants Theodore and Maria Cristodore. After several skirmishes, the trial court issued an order granting a preliminary injunction in the Cristodores’ favor. The Martins appeal, challenging the trial court’s reasoning and the court’s imposition of sanctions against them and their counsel. We shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Martins were deeded a 20-foot easement for an access road under their grant deed to the property in 2003. The Martins’ northern neighbors, the Cristodores, contested

1

the boundaries of the access road easement in 2006. In 2009 the parties entered into a stipulated judgment that states, in part: “1. Plaintiffs, Donald Martin and Jacqueline Martin shall be confirmed the quiet title to the 20 - foot easement as described in their Grant Deed. “2. Defendants, Theodore Cristodore and Maria Cristodore’s fence along the easement shall not be moved to accommodate that easement.” The stipulated judgment also required that the Cristodores straighten the fence on the northern side of the easement and “attach the fence to the fence posts / poles.” In 2011 the Martins and the owners of a neighboring parcel, the Santanas, entered into a “stipulation” stating the Cristodores were in violation of the stipulated judgment. On March 28, 2011, the trial court entered the stipulation as an order. In May 2011 the trial court vacated the stipulation, finding the Cristodores never received notice of the March 28, 2011, stipulation. The court also noted: “Based on the record presently before the Court, it appears that Plaintiffs’ renewal of this action is simply an attempt to enforce the 2009 stipulated judgment. However, Plaintiffs’ amendment of their complaint and stipulation with the Santanas is not a proper means of obtaining such enforcement. If Plaintiffs believed that Defendants had failed to comply with the stipulated judgment, they should have proceeded with a motion to compel Defendants’ compliance pursuant to the Court’s contempt power.” The court’s vacating of the stipulated order obviated the need for a preliminary injunction, and the 2009 stipulated judgment remained in effect. In March 2013 the Martins filed a “Motion Re: Breach of 2009 Stipulated Judgment,” seeking an order directing the Cristodores to remove a recently installed fence. The court denied the motion. The trial court found the stipulated judgment did not require the Cristodores to move their fence to accommodate the easement and that the rebuilt fence “tracks the same old fence line. There was no movement of the defendants’ fence.” The trial court based its finding on photographic evidence and the declarations of Theodore Cristodore and the fence’s installer, Rick Larkins.