This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns a dispute over the location of a wall between two properties. The Plaintiff, a homeowners' association, claimed that the wall was entirely within its property boundaries, as indicated by a survey. The Defendant, a homeowner, argued that the wall marked the boundary of her property and that she had maintained the land up to the wall for years. The Defendant also alleged that the Plaintiff withheld evidence and committed fraud in obtaining a zoning permit.
Procedural History
- District Court, Richard J. Knowles, J.: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, finding that the wall was located entirely within the Plaintiff's property boundaries.
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that a survey established the wall was entirely within its property boundaries and that the Defendant failed to provide any competent evidence to dispute this.
- Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the wall marked the boundary of her property, citing various documents and alleging that the Plaintiff withheld evidence and committed fraud. She also argued that the Plaintiff acquiesced to the boundary being defined by the wall through its conduct.
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff by finding that the wall was located entirely within the Plaintiff's property boundaries.
- Whether the Defendant's submissions raised a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
- Whether the Defendant's motions for a new trial and sanctions based on newly discovered evidence and alleged discovery violations should be granted.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
- The Defendant's motions for a new trial, sanctions, and consideration of new evidence were denied.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Bustamante and Robles JJ. concurring):
The Court held that summary judgment was appropriate because the Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the wall was located entirely within its property boundaries, supported by a survey. The burden then shifted to the Defendant to provide competent evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, which she failed to do. The documents submitted by the Defendant, including a feature package, covenants, and an improvement location report, did not establish that the wall marked the property boundary. Additionally, the Defendant was given 30 days to obtain a contradictory survey but failed to do so.
The Court rejected the Defendant's arguments regarding acquiescence, finding that she did not provide affidavits or other competent evidence to support her claims. Allegations in her pleadings were insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
The Defendant's motions for a new trial and sanctions were denied because they were based on evidence not presented to the district court, and appellate courts do not consider new evidence or impose sanctions for discovery violations raised for the first time on appeal.
For these reasons, the Court affirmed the district court's decision.