California Court of Appeal Apr 13, 2016 No. E063548Unpublished
Filed 4/13/16 Wilson v. Autler CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
LARRY WILSON,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E063548
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIC1108021)
CAROLE AUTLER, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sunshine S. Sykes, Judge.
Affirmed.
Carole Autler, Defendant and Appellant in pro. per.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
According to our records, this is the eighth time that Carole Autler and Larry
Wilson have been opposing parties in a matter before this court.
Wilson claims an easement over Autler’s land; Autler disputes his claim and has
blocked the easement. In 2012, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Wilson; it
issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Autler from blocking the easement.
1
Nevertheless, as of 2015, Autler was still blocking the easement. On Wilson’s motion,
the trial court modified the injunction so as to allow Wilson to clear the easement
Autler also never sought an appropriate remedy in this court. If she thought that
Wilson was about to violate an automatic stay, she was entitled to file a petition for a writ
of supersedeas. (Chapala Management Corp. v. Stanton (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1532,
1542, fn. 8.) She never filed such a petition. On May 28, 2015 — i.e., after Wilson
supposedly cleared the easement — she filed a “Motion to Clarify” whether the order
appealed from was automatically stayed. We denied that motion on the ground that we
6
could not give legal advice. We also ordered, “If appellant intended the motion to be a
petition for a writ of supersedeas, the petition is denied as inadequate.” Nevertheless,
Autler still did not file a supersedeas petition (and it was almost certainly too late for her
to do so).
Accordingly, we need not decide whether Wilson violated the automatic stay.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that he did, Autler has not shown that we can
give her any relief.
VI
DISPOSITION
The order appealed from is affirmed. As Wilson has not appeared, we do not
award any costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST J.
CODRINGTON J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court retained jurisdiction to modify a permanent injunction to allow the plaintiff to clear an easement, and that the defendant failed to provide evidence to challenge the easement's width or the validity of the modification.
Issues
Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to modify a permanent injunction after the entry of judgment.
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff to clear the easement when the original 2012 injunction did not explicitly order the defendant to do so.
Whether the trial court erred in its determination of the easement's width.
Whether the defendant established a violation of the automatic stay.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“A trial court, however, retains continuing jurisdiction to modify a permanent injunction.”
“the trial court has the power to modify a permanent injunction at any time, as necessary to serve the ends of justice.”
“the 2012 permanent injunction determined that the easement was 16 feet wide. That determination is binding on Autler as collateral estoppel.”