HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-12-05 Swenson Response Ltr to 11-26-2018 McVeigh CorrespDEMETRIOU, DEL GUERCIO, SPRINGER & FRANCIS, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
915 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 2000
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
JEFFREY Z. B. SPRINGER
STEPHEN A. DEL GUERCIO
MICHAEL A. FRANCIS
BRIAN D. LANGA
JENNIFER T. TAGGART
LESLIE M. DELGUERCIO
TAMMY M. J. HONG
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
(21 3) 624-8407
FAX (21 3) 624-01 74
WWW.DDSFFIRM.COM
December 5, 2018
Douglas P. Carstens, Esq.
Chatten-Brown & Carstens, LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa, Beach, CA 90254
Re: Claimed "Encroachment" Upon Drainage Easement
Dear Mr. Carstens:
CHRIS G. DEMETRIOU (1915- 1989)
RONALD J. DEL GUERCIO (RETIRED)
RICHARD A. DEL GUERCIO (RETIRED`
SENDER'S EMAIL ADDRESS
JSPRI NGER@DDSFFIRM.COM
SENDER'S DIRECT LINE
(21 3) 624-8407 EXT. 148
This letter is sent on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Swenson, the owners of the property
located at 77210 Loma Vista, LaQuinta, California, in response to your correspondence
dated November 26, 2018.
This letter is sent to place, you, your law firm, as well as your client on notice that
Mr. and Mrs. Swenson believe that the assertions contained in your letter are frivolous
and wholly intended to cause unnecessary delay within the meaning of California Code
of Civil Procedure § 128.5.
As you are well aware, the easement granted in Tract No. 26251 merely grants
an easement for "drainage and incidental purposes." The grant does not purport to be
exclusive. Indeed, the map shows a private street for residential use that goes overthe
drainage easement areas, thereby expressly denoting the intended residential uses of
Lots 1 and 2.
Settled California law provides that "[e]very incident of ownership that is not
inconsistent with the use and enjoyment of the easement is reserved to the owner [of
the land]." (E.g., Scruby v. Vintage Grapevine, Inc. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 697, 702.)
And the owner of the land "may use the easement area as long as the use does not
unreasonably interfere with the purpose of the easement." (E.g., Camp Meeker Water
System, Inc. v. Public Utility Comm. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 845, 867.)
Here, the Homeowners Association and its engineer have determined that the
proposed improvements do not interfere with the drainage easement. Indeed, the
retention system and the rockfall wall will reduce the chance of future flooding of the
Douglas P. Carstens, Esq.
Chatten-Brown & Carstens, LLP
December 5, 2018
Page 2
neighbors' properties. Since the proposed development does not interfere with the
easement, there is simply no factual or legal basis for your claim of "encroachment."
As a result, in the event that you commence litigation making such frivolous
assertions, then, pursuant to § 128.5, Mr. and Mrs. Swenson will seek to hold all of you
personally liable for all of the damages caused by such slander of title, together with
costs, expenses, attorney's fees, and sanctions.
C •
cc: M. Katherine Jenson (Via Emaio
Client