Kraemer v. DeMartini CA3

Filed 4/22/22 Kraemer v. DeMartini 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Nevada) ----

HOLLY KRAEMER,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C092052

v. (Super. Ct. No. CU10076930)

JAMES DEMARTINI et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

This case concerns use of a roadway that crosses property owned by Holly Kraemer to access parcels owned by the DeMartinis.1 After judgment was entered in

1 Because many of the parties share the same last name, we will refer to individuals by their first names for clarity.

1

Holly’s favor, Holly entered into a stipulation (the Stipulation) with Michael, Renate, James, and Ruth DeMartini providing, among other things, that an application to modify the judgment could be filed with the trial court if no appeal was filed. The trial court issued postjudgment orders consistent with the Stipulation. But after Michael and Renate filed a notice of appeal, Holly moved to rescind the Stipulation and to set aside the postjudgment orders. The trial court granted Holly’s motion as to Michael and Renate because they had appealed, but denied it as to James and Ruth because they did not appeal. Holly now contends the appeal by Michael and Renate resulted in a complete failure of consideration for the Stipulation, entitling Holly to rescind her agreement even if James and Ruth did not appeal. Finding no merit in her contention, we will affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND Holly owned real property located on Prince Rainier Way in Nevada City, Nevada County, referred to as Lot 19. The DeMartini family properties, also on Prince Rainier Way, did not adjoin Lot 19 but the family used a roadway crossing Lot 19 to access Newton Road to and from their properties. The location of the roadway on Lot 19 changed over the years. Holly filed a complaint for declaratory relief, quiet title and injunctive relief against members of the DeMartini family. Holly sought a declaration that the family had no interest in Lot 19 adverse to Holly’s interest. Among other things, Holly sought to permanently enjoin Michael and Renate from using any part of Lot 19 except for purposes of a revocable license. Holly settled her dispute with some DeMartini family members prior to the trial. Following a court trial, the trial court entered judgment quieting title and issued permanent injunctions against Michael, Renate, James, and Ruth. The judgment said Michael, Renate, James, and Ruth had an irrevocable license in the nature of a