This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 1 of 1 DOCUMENT CHARLES KINNEY, Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. SHERRIE OVERTON, Cross-defendant and Respondent. G037146 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE 153 Cal. App. 4th 482 ; 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 136 ; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1191 July 18, 2007, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Review denied by Kinney (Charles) v. Overton (Sherrie), 2007 Cal. LEXIS 11034 (Cal., Oct. 10, 2007) PRIOR-HISTORY: Superior Court of Orange County, No. 04C C03513, consolidated with No. 01CC15035, Thierry Patrick. Colaw, Judge. COUNSEL: Charles G. Kinney, in pro. per., for Cross-complainant and Appellant. Marcus, Watanabe, Snyder & Dave, Patricia M. Snyder and Daniel J. Enowitz for Cross-defendant and Respondent. JUDGES: Moore, J., with Sills, P. J., and Fybel, J., concurring. OPINION BY: Moore OPINION MOORE, J.--A residential subdivision in Laguna Beach is plagued with litigation involving a morass of legal issues and a plethora of parties--both public and private. The litigation was commenced by Three Arch Bay District against the City of Laguna Beach, Charles Kinney (Kinney) and numerous other parties. ( Three Arch Bay District v. City of Laguna Beach (Super. Ct. Orange County, No. 01CC15035).) Kinney, a homeowner in the subdivision and a lawyer, filed a cross-complaint and a number of amended cross-complaints, against the State of California, homeowner Sherrie Overton (Overton), and many other parties. Tiny portions of the litigation have been separated out one by one, bifurcated, and set for trial, in order, we presume, to make an unwieldy ball of wax just a little bit smaller. Those tiny portions have come to us in isolation, one appeal at a time. But Kinney, as one of the primary protagonists in the litigation, keeps complaining that the courts never slay the dragon and put the beast to rest. However, if the litigation is continually brought to us in bits and pieces, we can only address bits and pieces. We cannot address matters that are outside of the record on appeal or issues that do not arise from the portion of the litigation underlying the appeal in question. ( CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537, 539, fn. 1 [8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 927] ; People v. National Auto. & Cas. Co. (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 150, 153 [51 Cal. Rptr. 212] .) When all of the parties and issues are not put before this court, and we are not provided with all of the evidence necessary to finally address and resolve all ills, it is not possible for us to slay the dragon. Unless and until Kinney or another party to the litigation drags the entire beast before this court, we will continue to provide answers piecemeal--one talon at a time....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 01/26/2012 for the course FIN 365 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '11 term at S.F. State.
- Spring '11