Yeo Lai Sah Monastery v. Nelidov
Filed
Opinion following rehearing
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(El Dorado)
----
YEO LAI Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Appellant, v. GEORGE NELIDOV et al., Defendants, Cross-Complainants and Respondents. | C047826 (Super. OPINION ON REHEARING |
YEO LAI Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Appellant, v. GEORGE NELIDOV et al., Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Respondents; SEOL JO Cross-Defendant and Appellant. | C049616 (Super. |
In its ruling on a summary judgment motion the trial court resolved a boundary dispute in the underlying quiet title action, and a jury thereafter found the Yeo Lai Sah Buddhist Monastery and Zen Temple of America (Temple) and Seol Jo Lee (Master Lee) had slandered their neighbors' title and interfered with the neighbors' right to use an easement for ingress and egress. On appeal, the Temple challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the applicability of the litigation privilege, and the admissibility of the trial court's ruling on the summary judgment motion.[1] We conclude that decisional law has expanded the litigation privilege to encompass all litigation-related conduct and renders the Temple's recording of an erroneous survey absolutely privileged. (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b).) Because the evidentiary and instructional errors related to the survey were harmless in light of four other disparaging communications, we affirm.
I
We set forth the facts relevant to the slander of title and nuisance causes of action after a brief refresher on the tort of disparagement of title.
Disparagement of title, also known as slander of title, â€