Holmes v. Harlan (138 Cal. App. 3d 209, 1982)

Opinio’1

.ara Holmes and defendant Speckman ,c to a certain parcel of real property in

r& & ./-foot strip of real property lying between plaintiffs ’ sy ^zj . > (2).

The judgei. .¿versed except for that portion that adjudged “Plaintiffs have judgment _,ainst Burton C. Harlan in the amount of $173.00, plus $750.00 exemplary damages.” and “Plaintiffs shall recover their costs from Defendants, Hazel Speckman and Burton C. Harlan,” on the issue of damages herein.

Rouse, Acting P. J., and Smith, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied January 14, 1983.

The court’s first finding of fact essentially stated that plaintiffs neither own in fee simple nor are possessed of the disputed property. The second finding of fact states that defendants are and were the owners of said land.