Docstoc

F058617M

Document Sample
F058617M Powered By Docstoc
					Filed 5/30/12 Sumner Hill HOA v. Rio Mesa Holdings CA5




                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.


              IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                       FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


SUMNER HILL HOMEOWNERS’
ASSOCIATION, INC. et al.,                                                                  F058617

                                                                         (Madera Super. Ct. No. MCV032689)
         Plaintiffs and Appellants,

                   v.                                                    ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND
                                                                             DENYING REHEARING
RIO MESA HOLDINGS, LLC et al.,                                             [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

         Defendants and Appellants.


THE COURT:
         It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on May 2, 2012, and reported in the
Official Reports be modified in the following particulars:
         1.        In the published portion, on page 1, the third paragraph beginning
“McKenna, Long & Aldridge” is deleted and the following paragraph inserted in its
place:

               McKenna, Long & Aldridge, Charles A. Bird, Gerald M. Murphy,
         Antony D. Nash and Joshua M. Heinlein for Defendants and Appellants.
      2.     In the unpublished portion, on page 37, the last paragraph beginning
“Defendants next contend” is deleted and the following paragraph inserted in its place:

            Plaintiffs next contend that even if the County received only a road
      easement from the dedication set forth in the Amended Map, and not
      ownership of the roads, a subsequent agreement in 1986 did convey the
      ownership interest to the County. We disagree.
      This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.
      The petition for rehearing is denied.


                                                               _____________________
                                                                            KANE, J.


I CONCUR:


_____________________
WISEMAN, Acting P.J.




                                              2.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:9/18/2012
language:Unknown
pages:2