# 3. Gomez Property Investments, LLC vs. Davila
Case No.: TC028409
Matter on calendar for: Continued Trial
Notes:
Tentative ruling:
This is a dispute about who should pay to remove a wrought iron boundary fence that encroaches upon property owned by Plaintiff Gomez Property Investments, LLC. The case was tried to the Court on October 3, 2017. The trial was completed in a few hours. The Court asked for and received closing briefs. It also asked for proposed judgments, but did not receive any. No Statement of Decision was requested and none is required. The Court now announces its tentative decision.
Initially, Defendants Elvia Davila and Rogelia Davila contended that the fence did not encroach upon Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff proved that the fence encroached on its property through the testimony of a licensed land surveyor, Calvin Lindley. Lindley prepared a map, Exhibit A, which was admitted into evidence. On the map, Plaintiff’s property is referred to as Lot 95. As shown on
Type
Other Real Property Rights Case (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
# 3. Gomez Property Investments, LLC vs. Davila
Case No.: TC028409
Matter on calendar for: Continued Trial
Notes:
Tentative ruling:
This is a dispute about who should pay to remove a wrought iron boundary fence that encroaches upon property owned by Plaintiff Gomez Property Investments, LLC. The case was tried to the Court on October 3, 2017. The trial was completed in a few hours. The Court asked for and received closing briefs. It also asked for proposed judgments, but did not receive any. No Statement of Decision was requested and none is required. The Court now announces its tentative decision.
Initially, Defendants Elvia Davila and Rogelia Davila contended that the fence did not encroach upon Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff proved that the fence encroached on its property through the testimony of a licensed land surveyor, Calvin Lindley. Lindley prepared a map, Exhibit A, which was admitted into evidence. On the map, Plaintiff’s property is referred to as Lot 95. As shown on