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.

Helen Lee v. Robert Lyles et al

October 28, 2011

HELEN LEE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT LYLES ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS.



Super. Ct. No. 05AS01166

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

Lee v. Lyles CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

In this real property dispute, pro per plaintiff Helen Lee appeals the judgment for defendants entered following a court trial.

We shall affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND*fn1

Plaintiff Lee and others own a residential lot commonly known as 2218 Rene Avenue, Sacramento (2218). Robert and Shirley Lyles (the Lyles) own the neighboring lot, 2220 Rene Avenue, Sacramento (2220).

The parties' dispute concerns the 2004 tax default sale to the Lyles of a 10-foot wide strip of land located between, and running the length of, the parties' respective residential lots. The County of Sacramento (County) sold the 10-foot strip of land, a separately assessed parcel, to the Lyles, who then caused their lot at 2220 and the 10-foot parcel to be merged.

Plaintiff*fn2 sued the Lyles and the County, claiming an interest in the 10-foot parcel under the theories of adverse possession and prescriptive easement, and challenging the legal validity of the tax default sale by the County.*fn3 A two-day court trial followed.

The trial court issued its written judgment in favor of the Lyles and the County. It found in pertinent part that Lee had "not established the factual or legal basis for adverse possession or an easement of necessity for access and egress from the property." It further found that Lee had "not established the factual or legal basis to void [the County's] 2004 tax sale of [the 10-foot parcel] to the Lyles."

It is from this judgment that Lee now appeals. As both the County and the Lyles point out in their responsive briefing, Lee's briefing is difficult to follow and is not in compliance with many of our rules and requirements. Nevertheless, we attempt to decipher and address Lee's claims, to the extent that we are able, and to the extent that it is proper to do so, as explained post.

DISCUSSION

I Standard of ...


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.