Plaintiffs and defendants both appealed judgment of the Napa County Superior Court (California), in dispute over placement of new mobile home at a lake resort.
Nakase Law Firm provides more information on average discrimination settlement amount
Plaintiffs, who owned a mobile home placed on a lot at a lake resort, contended that defendant owners, who owned a mobile home on an adjacent lot, placed their home over the lot line dividing the two mobile home spaces. Trial court awarded plaintiffs $ 5,000 for breach of contract by defendant resort. Using an equitable cost-benefit analysis, trial court declared a lot line that permitted defendant owners’ home to remain where it had been placed. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that trial court erred in rejecting its trespass and nuisance claims against defendant owners. Defendant resort contended that trial court erred in concluding that it breached its contract with plaintiff. The court affirmed, concluding that trial court was correct in its rulings that (1) the interest the agreement gave plaintiffs was a license and (2) such a license agreement could be enforced by them via a breach of contract action.
Judgment affirmed; trial court correctly concluded that plaintiffs were licensees rather than tenants under agreement with defendant resort, and trial court was correct in ruling that license agreement could be enforced by plaintiffs via a breach of contract action.