Beyl v. Hupp CA4/2
Defendant and appellant Paul Hupp contends the trial court abused its discretion in issuing a restraining order against him in a civil harassment proceeding under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.; the Elder Abuse Act) brought by plaintiff and respondent Richard A. Beyl. Hupp argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to establish harassment because his trespass on Beyl’s property was de minimis and for the purpose of trimming the hedge as mandated by the homeowner’s association; and (2) Beyl may not complain of Hupp’s trespass because Beyl implicitly consented to it by failing to object. We conclude that the evidence shows that Hupp’s repeated trespass constituted harassment, and Beyl never consented to it. We therefore affirm, finding no abuse of discretion.
Comments on Beyl v. Hupp CA4/2