Upton v. Van Boxtel
Filed 4/20/06 Upton v. Van Boxtel CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| TOMMY HAROLD UPTON et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. W. J. VAN BOXTEL et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
F047896
(Super. Ct. No. 04C0302)
O P I N I O N
|
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County. James LaPorte, Commissioner.
Dooley Herr & Peltzer, Leonard C. Herr and Quelie M. Saechao for Defendants and Appellants.
Stringham, Hillman & Lew and Ward R. Stringham for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
oo0oo
Appellants, W. J. Van Boxtel and Roseanne S. Van Boxtel, individually and as trustees (collectively Van Boxtel), and respondents, Tommy Harold Upton, Dorothy Ann Upton, individually and as trustees, Thomas H. Upton and Rhona Upton (collectively Upton) own contiguous parcels of real property. Access to Upton's property is by a road that, in part, traverses Van Boxtel's property. After Van Boxtel placed a locked barricade across this road, Upton filed the underlying action seeking a decree quieting title to an alleged easement for the road and a preliminary injunction against interference with those easement rights.
The trial court issued the preliminary injunction. The court overruled Van Boxtel's evidentiary objections and found that Upton will probably prevail on the causes of action asserting easement by prescription and public easement. Van Boxtel challenges this ruling on the ground that Upton failed to present any facts establishing the reasonable probability of success at trial.[1]
As discussed below, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
Van Boxtel acquired section 17, Township 23 South, Range 16 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in 1995. The roadway in dispute is located on this section. Van Boxtel refers to this road as a â€
