Bunton v. Barber — Fear Not Law

<html> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <title>Filed 3/17/06 Bunton v</title> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Filed 3/17/06 Bunton v. Barber CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS <div style='border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt'> <span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:Arial'>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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977. </div> IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style='border-collapse:collapse'> <tr> <td width=319 valign=top style='width:239.4pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> TERENCE BUNTON et al., margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in'> Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants, v. MICHAEL BARBER, margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in'> Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. </td> <td width=319 valign=top style='width:239.4pt;border:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> A106932 (Marin County Super. Ct. No. CV 021980) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] </td> </tr> </table> THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 15, 2006, be modified as follows: 1. On page 26, add as footnote 11, at the end of the first sentence in section IV. DISPOSITION: 11 In a petition for rehearing, Mr. Barber sought reinstatement of certain provisions of paragraph Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of the trial court's statement of decision that limited the right of the Buntons to alter and improve the roadway, remove obstacles, and trim overhanging brush. The trial court is directed to vacate these provisions because they are potentially inconsistent with an easement owner's right to take actions, including such improvements as grading and paving, â€