Yeo Lai Sah Buddhist Monastery and Zen Temple v. Nelidov

Filed 4/4/06 Yeo Lai Sah Buddhist Monastery and Zen Temple v. Nelidov CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(El Dorado)

----

In its ruling on a summary judgment motion the trial court resolved a boundary dispute in the underlying quiet title action, and a jury thereafter found the Yeo Lai Sah Buddhist Monastery and Zen Temple of America (Temple) had slandered its neighbors' title and interfered with their right to use an easement for ingress and egress. On appeal, the Temple challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the applicability of the litigation privilege, and the admissibility of the trial court's ruling on the summary judgment motion.^[1] We affirm.

I

The Temple's attack on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict that the Temple disparaged its neighbors' title requires a recitation of the facts, distilled from the entire record, in support of the jury's factual findings. (Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Denton (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 333, 368-369.) We set forth the facts relevant to the slander of title and nuisance causes of action after a brief refresher on the tort of disparagement of title.

Disparagement of title, also known as slander of title, â€