Cross-Complaint

Pauline Abbott, Esq. (95309)

1 LAW OFFICES OF PAULINE ABBOTT
1234 Scenic Avenue, Suite 1206
2
Vista View, California 94555
3 510-555-1234

4 Attorney for Cross-complainants

Alan and Susan Butler
5

8
SUPERIOR COURT OF SEAVIEW COUNTY
9
NORTHERN BRANCH
10
Brian Lester,
11
Plaintiff,
12
Vs.
13
Alan Butler and Susan Butler and Does 1-10,
14
Defendants;
15
______________________________________/
16 Case No.:7148-6
Alan Butler and Susan Butler,
17 CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR QUIET
Cross-complainants, TITLE OF EASEMENT, INJUNCTIVE
18 RELIEF, AND TRESPASS
vs.
19
Brian Lester, and Roes 1-10,
20
Cross-defendants. /
21

22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Quiet Title of Prescriptive Easement)
23

24 1. Cross-complainants Alan Butler and Susan Butler are the owners of the real property

25 commonly known as 2126 Perouse Drive, Seaview, Seaview County. Cross-defendant

____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint 1
 Cross-Complaint

1 Brian Lester is the owner of the adjacent real property commonly known as 5961 Vista

2 Drive, Seaview, Seaview County.

3 2. Cross-complainants own an easement that burdens cross-defendant’s real property. From

4 the assessor’s map 48E, Vista Highlands, the easement is particularly described as a

5 triangle beginning at the surveyor’s mark at the intersection of the lot lines of lots 57, 63

6 and parcels 1, 2 and 3 of lot 64, proceeding in a straight line for 36 feet along the

7 property boundary line between lot 57 and parcel 3 of lot 64 to the red-capped steel hub,

8 then in a straight line from that point to a point on the boundary line of parcels 63 and 57

9 that is 26' feet from the point of origin, then along that property boundary line to the point

10 of origin.

11 3. Cross-complainants’ title is based on Cross-complainants’ actual, open, notorious, hostile,

12 and adverse use of the easement for the 31 years preceding the commencement of this

13 action.

14 4. Cross-defendant Lester claims an interest in the easement as the holder of the legal title to

15 the Property, which interest is adverse to that of Cross-complainants.

16 5. Cross-complainants are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Cross-defendants

17 sued herein as DOES I-20 and therefore sue those Cross-defendants by such fictitious

18 names. Cross-complainants will amend this cross-complaint to allege their true names

19 and capacities when ascertained. Cross-complainants are informed and believe and

20 thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named Cross-defendants claims some right,

21 title, estate, lien, or interest in the easement adverse to Cross-complainants’ title, and their

22 claims constitute a cloud on Cross-complainants’ title.

23 6. Cross-complainants are seeking to quiet title against all adverse claims of all Cross-

24 defendants, including the claims of the fictitiously named Cross-defendants described

25 above and the claim of defendant Lester as holder of the legal title.

____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint 2
 Cross-Complaint

1 7. The adverse claims are without any right whatever. Cross-defendants have no right, title,

2 estate, lien, or interest whatever in the easement adverse to Cross-complainants’ title.

3 8. Plaintiff seeks to quiet title as of January 1975.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (Injunctive Relief)
5 9. Cross-complainants hereby incorporate all allegations of paragraphs 1 through 8 as if set
6 forth in full.
7 10. Cross-defendants claim the right of exclusive use of the easement. Under claim of
8 ownership of the easement, Cross-defendants have entered Cross-complainants’ easement
9 without Cross-complainants’ permission and removed Cross-complainants’ fence, after
10 which Cross-complainants replaced the fence. Cross-defendants removed the fence a
11 second time, and damaged Cross-complainants’ property, as well as removing property
12 affixed to the land, and destroying it. Cross-defendants have also removed the deer fence
13 protecting the landscaping in Cross-complainants’ easement, as well as protecting the real
14 property to which Cross-complainants’ have legal record title. Cross-defendants have
15 posted the easement to prevent Cross-complainants’ from entering it, and threatened them
16 with criminal prosecution if they enter or make any use of the easement. Cross-
17 defendants have also cleared shrubs and other plantings landscaped by Cross-
18 complainants, and they are presently installing a fence to deprive Cross-complainants
19 from access to the easement area.
20 11. Cross-defendants’ acts have caused Cross-complainants emotional and physical distress,
21 as well as damaged their easement property and the title to which they hold record title.
22 They have been and will continue to be deprived of their peace of mind and security in
23 their home and property.
24 12. Cross-defendants’ acts, if permitted to continue, will continue to cause great and
25 irreparable injury to Cross-complainants because Cross-defendants threaten to acquire a

____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint 3
 Cross-Complaint

1 prescriptive easement over Cross-complainants’ easement. Cross-complainants have no

2 adequate remedy at law for the continuing injury caused by Cross-defendants’ acts.

3 Damages will be inadequate if Cross-complainants must yield to Cross-defendants over

4 Cross-complainants’ land and/or easement. The only other remedy that Cross-

5 complainants could have before a prescriptive easement is created by Cross-defendants

6 would be to commence serial actions for damages each time Cross-defendants trespass on

7 Cross-complainants’ land, and each time Cross-complainants’ land and property is

8 damaged which would result in a multiplicity of actions.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
9 (Trespass)
10 13. Cross-complainants hereby incorporate all allegations of paragraphs 1 through 11 as if set
11 forth in full.
12 14. On or about March 14, 2000 and continuing to the present time, Cross-defendants have
13 unreasonably interfered with and obstructed Cross-complainants’ easement by twice
14 removing Cross-complainants’ deer fence (resulting in damage to Cross-complainants’
15 landscaping on the easement property and in Cross-complainants’ property to which
16 Cross-complainants’ hold record title, and posting a “No Trespassing” sign, and
17 subsequently a “Keep Out” sign. Cross-defendants have continued to threaten Cross-
18 complainants not to enter the easement property on pain of criminal prosecution. Cross-
19 defendants’ acts have resulted in the obstruction of Cross-complainants’ easement right
20 by permitting deer to destroy the personal property and landscaping Cross-complainants
21 have placed on the easement and by permitting deer to destroy the personal property and
22 landscaping on the property to which Cross-complainants’ hold record title, and to
23 prevent Cross-complainants from entering the easement and enjoying it.
24 15. Cross-defendants have taken many of these actions after notice from cross-complainants
25 of the existence of the easement, and the facts necessary to establish their easement

____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint 4
 Cross-Complaint

1 rights, as well as the facts establishing the emotional and physical injuries that have been

2 caused by cross-defendants.

3 16. Cross-defendants continue to trespass onto, and destroy the easement landscaping and

4 topography even after notice of cross-complainants’ ex parte application for temporary

5 restraining order, in a deliberate attempt to harm and injure cross-complainants, to

6 intimidate them, and to prevent them from exercising their rights.

7 17. As a proximate result of Cross-defendants’ trespassory conduct, Cross-complainants have

8 sustained continuing damages by being deprived of the use of their easement property,

9 and by the loss of landscaping and personal property not only in the easement but also in

10 the property to which they hold record title, in an amount be determined at the time of

11 trial. Cross-complainants are both at risk for physical and emotional injury from

12 continuing emotional trauma and mental and physical distress and have suffered mental

13 and physical injury as a result of Cross-defendants’ actions and threats, and Cross-

14 complainants’ fear for their safety and lack of security as a result of Cross-defendants’

15 actions.

16 18. Cross-complainants are entitled to punitive damages for the actions of Cross-defendants,

17 who are guilty of oppression and malice in these actions.

18 WHEREFORE, Cross-complainants pray for judgment as follows:

19 1. For an order requiring Cross-defendants to show why they should not be enjoined from

20 constructing any fencing or other barrier to the easement area, from taking any action

21 involving the landscaping of the easement area, and from interfering with the use and

22 enjoyment of easement area by the Cross-complainants, including fencing designed to

23 prevent entry to the easement area by deer or other wildlife for the pendency of this

24 action;

25

____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint 5
 Cross-Complaint

1 2. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction

2 requiring that Brian Lester, Does 1-10, and their agents, servants, employees, and all

3 persons acting thereunder, in concert with them or for them, to immediately refrain from

4 abusing, violating, building, planting, grading, or irrigating on and/or otherwise

5 interfering with the easement, constructing any fence or other barrier to prevent Cross-

6 complainants’ access to the easement; and interfering in any way with Cross-

7 complainants’ use of the easement.

8 3. That Cross-complainants are the owners of the easement, that no defendant has any

9 interest in the easement adverse to Cross-complainants, that Cross-defendants and each of

10 them is enjoined from claiming or asserting any right, title or interest in the easement, or

11 any portion thereof;

12 4. For general and special damages according to proof;

13 5. For punitive damages;

14 6. For costs of suit herein incurred; and

15 7. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

16 8.
July 14, 2004
17
Pauline Abbott, Esq.
18 Attorney for Cross-
complainants
19 Alan and Susan Butler
20

21

22

23

24

25

____________________________
Lester v. Butler Cross-Complaint 6