Baker v. Goddard
In this dispute among neighboring cattle ranchers, Harry A. Baker and Jacquelyn L. Baker,[1]trustees of the Harry A. Baker and Jacquelyn L. Baker Revocable Trust of 1998, sued David W. Goddard, James D. Hudson, Eugene Burrill, Thomas Eugene Burrill (individually and as trustee for Anthony Lynn Burrill), and Crystal Burrill, claiming entitlement to access the Bakers property by a road crossing defendants properties. Baker alleged in the alternative an easement by necessity, an easement by prescription, or an equitable easement.
The matter went to bench trial. After Baker rested, defendants moved for judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., 631.8 [subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure].) The trial court granted the motion with a written statement of decision. Subsequently, the court granted defendants motion for attorney fees and costs as to two requests for admissions which the court found that Baker had wrongly refused to admit. ( 2033.420.) Baker appeals from the judgment and the fee order.
However, Court reverse the order for attorney fees. One request for admissions was so broadly worded that Bakers refusal to admit the alleged facts was literally correct, and the other did not ask Baker to admit any fact which had any actual or potential importance to the trial of the case. Thus, an award of fees to defendants as sanctions was inappropriate.
Comments on Baker v. Goddard