SOUTH BEVERLY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. NORTH BEVERLY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
SOUTH BEVERLY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
NORTH BEVERLY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant and Appellant.
No. B216652.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three.
Filed August 19, 2010.
Huron Law Group, Jeffrey G. Huron, Ann S. Lee; and Philip A. Metson for Defendant and Appellant.
Pine & Pine, Norman Pine, Ronald A. Reiter, Beverly Tillett Pine and Janet R. Gusdorff for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTSKLEIN, P. J.
Defendant and appellant North Beverly Park Homeowners Association (the North) appeals a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and respondents Beverly Park Homeowners Association, David Sydorick, Virginia Sydorick, Allison Berg, Laurence Berg, Bob M. Cohen, Michele Cohen, Mo Gharavi, Jennifer Gharavi, Richard Zanuck, Lilly Zanuck, Irving Zuckerman, Peyman Daneshrad, Shadi Daneshrad, Louise Taper, Michael Solomon, Luciana Solomon, Daniel Blatteis, Angela Blatteis, Earvin Johnson, Cookie Johnson, Samuel Jackson and LaTanya Jackson (collectively, the South) following a court trial involving the interpretation of a written grant of an easement.
The South has an easement enabling its "members" to pass through the North's gates and streets to reach the South. The North asserts use of the easement is strictly limited to the South's homeowners or title holders; the South contends its members' right of access extends to their guests and invitees, such as gardeners, nannies, delivery people, friends and relatives. The trial court agreed with the South's interpretation.
We conclude the trial court properly found the grant of easement was ambiguous, the trial court properly received extrinsic evidence to determine the proper interpretation of the grant, and that the trial court's resolution of the ambiguity is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1. Facts.
1. The North attributes great significance to the fact that unlike section 24.06, which specifies the internal easement for North members is for the use and benefit of Owners as well as "their guests or invitees," section 24.08, the easement in favor of the South, is for the "exclusive use of the [South] Members," without any mention of the South's guests or invitees.
2. An alternative route, in light traffic, would take at least 25 minutes.