By: Micaela L. Neal
Hoffman v. Superior Ready Mix Concrete, L.P., No. D072929, 2018 WL 6629519 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2018).
California law provides special protection for owners of “lands either under cultivation or intended or used for the raising of livestock,” or, in other words, agricultural lands. In the event of a trespass on such lands, which trespass results in damages to personal or real property, the land owner is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees from the trespasser. This is a special privilege, as attorneys’ fees can rarely be shifted to the winning/prevailing party in California, absent a specific contract providing for such “fee shifting.”
A California appellate court recently confirmed just how broad the privilege is when it found that the privilege applies even when the portion of the land actually trespassed on and damaged is not itself under cultivation. In the case under consideration, a quarry operator widened and reconfigured an easement road which blocked drainage and interfered with drainage patterns on the neighboring land owner’s property, constructed a basin that encroached on the neighbor’s property, maintained gravel and/or dirt berms that encroached and caused erosion on the neighbor’s property, and performed clearing and grading that disrupted water flow and caused runoff on the neighbor’s property.
The neighbor whose land was affected grew plants as a hobby, with the intent of opening a commercial nursery and koi-growing operation. The neighbor had not yet opened a nursery, used only six out of 28 acres for nursery purposes, and the trespass did not damage the portion of the property used for plant cultivation, and did not damage any nursery plants.
The jury found that the quarry operator had trespassed, but not caused a nuisance or been negligent. It awarded the neighbor only $17,000 in compensatory damages, and no punitive or discomfort/annoyance damages.
Nonetheless, the trial court found and the appellate court confirmed that the neighbor was entitled to an additional award of over $16,000 in costs, and $289,153.75 in attorneys’ fees – far in excess of the actual damages. In so finding, the court found that the term “lands…under cultivation” refers to the character of the land in general, rather than the specific area of land trespassed on. Even though the neighbor had not yet opened a nursery business, the land was zoned for agriculture, was in a rural area, and the neighbor had mulch, planting mix and tree boxes delivered to the property for the future business. At one time, the neighbor had 20,000 plants growing on the property (prior to an unrelated broken well pump), and was continuing to maintain and increase inventory. The court found this sufficient for purposes of the statute, and upheld the fee award.
This case in instructive, as it confirms that even a minor trespass causing very little damage can have big consequences. Extra caution in land use operations, and advance research regarding property lines and neighboring land uses, is advisable.
Micaela L. Neal is an attorney with Wanger Jones Helsley PC and practices in Fresno and Sacramento. Her practice focuses on civil litigation, including property disputes. This article is intended to notify our clients and friends of changes and updates to the law and provide general information. It is not intended, nor should it be used, as legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader.