Fear Not Law Articles: Bel Air Cliff Property Holding v. Golshan

Bel Air Cliff Property Holding v. Golshan

Filed 7/26/06 Bel Air Cliff Property Holding v. Golshan CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BEL AIR CLIFF PROPERTY HOLDING, INC.,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

KAVEH KEVIN Golshan etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

B182837

(Super. Ct. No. BC296318)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jane L. Johnson, Judge. Reversed and remanded with direction.

Law Offices of Mark Rabinovich and Mark Rabinovich for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Christopher E. Deal for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Bel Air Cliff Property Holding, Inc. (Bel Air) filed suit against defendant and respondent Kaveh Kevin Golshan (Golshan) to quiet title to an easement Golshan claimed he had to pass over and use Bel Air's property. Bel Air appeals a judgment in favor of Golshan, following an order granting Golshan's motion for summary judgment. The trial court ruled that the easement agreement at issue (the â€

Description	Plaintiff and appellant suit against defendant and respondent to quiet title to an easement and claimed they had to pass over and use respondent's property. The trial court correctly ruled that the Easement Agreement created an easement and not a license. The trial court erred, however, by ruling that the easement was appurtenant to defendant and respondent's property.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.