From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Twining v. Hartlip

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Feb 16, 2012
A130661 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012)

Opinion

A130661

02-16-2012

ELOISE TWINING et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants, v. CASEY HARTLIP et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK CVG 07-50081)


ORDER MODIFYING OPINION DENYING REHEARING AND [CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT: The opinion filed January 26, 2012, is hereby modified as follows:

1. On page 1, the last sentence of the first full paragraph shall be modified read as follows:
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and order the judgment modified.
2. On page 14, the third sentence of the first full paragraph is modified to change the word "subdivided" to "divided" so that the sentence reads as follows:
While in 1957 both the subject property and remaining property together consisted of four parcels, by the time of the sale to MacDonald in 1964, the subject property alone had been divided into seven parcels.
3. On page 14, the fourth sentence of the first full paragraph is modified to change the word "subdivided" to "divided" so that the sentence reads as follows:
After they sold the divided property to MacDonald, the Twinings moved into a new home on the remaining property.
4. On page 20, subheading III shall be modified from "Conclusion" to "Disposition."
5. On page 20, the last full paragraph and only paragraph under the newly named "Disposition" heading shall be modified to read as follows:
The trial court's judgment as to the scope and width of the easement along Twinning Road over the added property and worm is affirmed in part and reversed in part. On remand, the trial court is directed to modify its judgment to specify that defendants have a prescriptive easement over such property, along Twinning Road, that allows access to the subject property (as defined in the Court of Appeal opinion filed January 26, 2012, in case No. A130661) for residential and agricultural uses and is as wide as local ordinances or regulations, or state laws or regulations, legally require for such uses of the subject property. The trial court's judgment as to Gate #1, allowing defendants to install an electric gate in place of the current manual gate, is affirmed. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.

Before Marchiano, P. J., Margulies, J. and Banke, J.

________________

Marchiano, P. J.


Summaries of

Twining v. Hartlip

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Feb 16, 2012
A130661 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012)
Case details for

Twining v. Hartlip

Case Details

Full title:ELOISE TWINING et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants, v…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

Date published: Feb 16, 2012

Citations

A130661 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012)