Legal Opinion

Zissler v. Saville

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided November 29, 2018No. 2d Civil No. B286043PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYegan, Acting P. J.

*634Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder but legal ambiguity is not. As we shall explain, there is no objective legal ambiguity in the easement here at issue.

Patrick J. Saville, as Trustee, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of respondent James F. Zissler, as Trustee. These Montecito neighbors have a dispute over an easement. The trial court "interpreted" an ingress-egress easement burdening respondent's property for the benefit of appellant's property. The trial court ruled that the easement was ambiguous, decided the case based upon extrinsic evidence *594of historic use, and added…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Continental Baking Co. v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. City of Pasadena v. California-Michigan Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Oakdale Village Group v. FongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  5. Winslow v. City of VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Raymond Staniforth v. United States of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2024
  2. Razon v. Southern California Permanente etc. CA2/7California Court of Appeal · 2020
  3. Razon v. Southern California Permanente etc. CA2/7California Court of Appeal · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API