Bunton v. Barber
Filed 4/21/05 Bunton v. Barber CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| TERENCE BUNTON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MICHAEL BARBER, Defendant and Respondent. | A109151 (Marin County Super. Ct. No. CV 021980) |
I. INTRODUCTION
Terence and Pauline Bunton (Buntons) sued Michael Barber and Marina Zuk in connection with a property dispute. Prior to and during the trial on the merits, Barber and Zuk testified that they were husband and wife. The jury found Barber liable to the Buntons for a substantial judgment, but it found no liability against Zuk. During a subsequent trial on punitive damages against Barber alone, he relied in part on his purported marriage to Zuk in contending that no punitive damages should be imposed. None were.
Following Barber's failure to pay the judgment against him, the Buntons applied to the trial court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 704.750 for sale of real property owned by Barber and Zuk as joint tenants. In opposing the sale, Barber and Zuk revealed that they were not married, despite their representations to the contrary during the litigation. Because they were not married, they argued, the home was not a community asset and could not be sold to satisfy Barber's debt. The trial court denied the Buntons' application, refusing their request that Barber and Zuk be judicially estopped from denying their marriage. We affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
The Buntons are next-door neighbors of Barber and Zuk. After several years of peaceful coexistence, a dispute arose between the Buntons and Barber and Zuk regarding the Buntons' use of a road that crosses the Barber/Zuk property, over which the Buntons possess an easement for ingress and egress. As described in more detail in a prior opinion of this court (Bunton et al. v. Barber (Feb. 15, 2006, A106932) [nonpub. opn.]), the Buntons brought suit, claiming that Barber and Zuk had engaged in a campaign of harassment designed to prevent them from using this road.[1] Following a trial on the merits, the jury found against Barber on the Buntons' claims for nuisance, trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but it found in favor of Zuk. Compensatory damages of $422,000 were awarded against Barber, but the jury declined to impose punitive damages. Our previous opinion affirmed the judgment against Barber.
During litigation of the underlying action, both Barber and Zuk gave sworn testimony creating the impression that they were married. On direct examination at trial, Barber testified:
â€
