Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Richard Maddock et al v. County of Sonoma

December 30, 2010

RICHARD MADDOCK ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS,
v.
COUNTY OF SONOMA, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT



(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV234081)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jones, P.J.

Maddock v. County of Sonoma

CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Richard and Gaylyn Maddock appeal from a judgment that enforces a prior settlement agreement. They contend the trial court erred when it declined to award them the attorney fees and costs they incurred to enforce the agreement. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion and will affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Maddocks own property located on Alexander Valley Road in Healdsburg. A creek is located adjacent to the Maddock's property and water from the creek flows into a culvert and underneath Alexander Valley Road. The County of Sonoma (County) was performing work on the culvert as part of the Geysers Project. That work was performed improperly and three times in December 2002, the creek overflowed its banks and flooded the Maddock's property and home. The County performed some emergency repairs but the Maddocks wanted a more permanent solution. In December 2003, they filed a complaint against the County and others alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass and inverse condemnation.

The complaint was settled in December 2006 when the parties executed a written settlement agreement. As is relevant here, the County agreed as follows:

--"to construct a new concrete headwall at the existing culvert . . . ."

--"to install a W beam guardrail for the full length of the wall."

--"to provide [the Maddocks] with plans for the headwall construction."

--"to grant the Maddocks the right to review and approve the plans."

--"to complete the work by October 15, 2007, subject to there being no Presidential Declaration of Disaster in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.