County of Santa Cruz v. Hal Porter Homes
Filed 4/3/06 County of Santa Cruz v. Hal Porter Homes CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, H028880
Cross-Complainant and Appellant, (Santa Cruz County
Superior Court
v. No. CV145357)
HAL PORTER HOMES,
Cross-Defendant and Respondent.
_____________________________________/
Appellant County of Santa Cruz (County) appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer by respondent Hal Porter Homes (HPH) to appellant's cross-complaint for indemnity. The trial court found that the action was barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15, because the action was not brought within 10 years of the completion of the construction project.[1] We find no error and affirm.
I. Statement of Facts
On appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint after a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, we treat as true the properly pleaded factual allegations of the complaint. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.) Those allegations are as follows:
Between 1961 and 1971, HPH developed and constructed portions of the Santa Cruz Gardens subdivision, including the drainage system,. In 1964, these public improvements were dedicated to and accepted by the County's Board of Supervisors.
Plaintiffs David and Dolores McCartney, Kenneth and Loretta Reaves, and Richard and Jill Silva (plaintiffs) own three adjoining properties in the subdivision. The rear of their property is adjacent to a ravine. Defendants Pete and Haruyo Pearson (the Pearsons) own the property behind plaintiffs' property, including the ravine. In December 2002, plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Pearsons in which they alleged that the Pearsons negligently maintained their property so that the natural flow of water was altered, which then caused landslides and erosion of plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages.
In December 2003, the Pearsons filed a cross-complaint against plaintiffs, the County, Soquel Union Elementary School District, and multiple homeowners within the subdivision. The Pearsons alleged that cross-defendants diverted surface water into the ravine.
In December 2004, the County filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against HPH and others. The County alleged that HPH was responsible for developing and constructing the drainage system for the subdivision that the Pearsons alleged was responsible for the damage.
In March 2005, HPH filed a demurrer to the County's cross-complaint on the ground that it was barred by the 10-year limitations period of section 337.15. The trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. Since the County was unable to state additional allegations, the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
On appeal from a judgment of dismissal after a demurrer is sustained, â€
