Corrigan v. Kent
Jill Dore Kent, individually and as trustee of the Jill Dore Kent living trust, appeals from the judgment ordering the reduction or removal of vegetation from her property and permanently enjoining her from planting vegetation impairing respondents' views. Appellant contends that the trial court applied the Santa Barbara view ordinance improperly because her vegetation did not unreasonably obstruct respondents' views. (See S.B. Ord. No. 5220, S.B. Mun. Code, 22.76.010-22.76.140 (view ordinance).)[1] She also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's conclusion that her vegetation constituted "spite fences." Respondents, Patrick Corrigan and Margaret Ingalls (husband and wife), request that we impose sanctions upon appellant for filing a frivolous appeal, and that Court remand this case with directions to the trial court to evaluate respondents' entitlement to post judgment damages. Court affirm the judgment and decline to impose the requested sanctions or to direct the trial court to evaluate respondents' entitlement to post-judgment damages.
Comments on Corrigan v. Kent