MOTION – ENFORCE
Defendants Peter Haubold and Cynthia Haubold, as Individuals and Trustees of the Cynthia and Peter Haubold 2005 Family Trust’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Enforce the Final Statement of Decision and Compel Enforcement of the Good Neighbor Fence Law (Civ. Code, § 841 et seq.) is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This matter arose out of a dispute between neighbors - the Formbys (“Plaintiffs”) at 16 Olive Ave, Larkspur (“Formby Property”) and Defendants at 20 Olive Ave, Larkspur (“Haubold Property”).
Plaintiffs sued Defendants to recover approximately 480 square feet of land belonging to Plaintiffs, which was then under the exclusive use of Defendants. This 480 square feet of land was later defined as the “disputed area” in the Statement of Decision. (See RFNJ No. 1, p. 3:4-7.) The case came before the Honorable Judge Chou for trial on April 10, 2023. The presentation of evidence concluded April 27, 2023. The Statement of Decision was filed August 9, 2023. The Statement of Decision indicated that “Plaintiffs will bear the cost of removing all encroachments and replacement of the fence around the disputed area. Thereafter, if any further fence work need be completed, the parties are ordered to comply with the provisions of Civil Code section 841.” (Id., p. 10:19-25.) The Court “retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of its orders.” (Id., p. 11:4.)
The matter was taken up on appeal on September 8, 2023, and on August 28, 2025, the Court of Appeal affirmed this Court’s Judgment. While the Statement of Decision contemplated the filing of a subsequent Judgment, one was never filed. The Court of Appeal elected to treat
CV2103050
the August 9, 2023 document as the final Judgment in the matter and this Court follows that lead. (Formby, et al. v. Haubold, et al. A168815, August 28, 2025.)
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice No. 1 is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Motion appears to seek a combination of Enforcement of the Statement of Decision as well as Enforcement of the Good Neighbor Fence Law.
This Motion concerns fencing outside of the “disputed area.” (See RFNJ No. 1, p. 3:4-7.) The Statement of Decision indicated that “Plaintiffs will bear the cost of ... replacement of the fence around the disputed area. Thereafter, if any further fence work need be completed, the parties are ordered to comply with the provisions of Civil Code section 841.” (Id., p. 10:19-25.) Defendant appears to base the Motion on the latter half of this statement. (Haubold Decl., ¶ 2.)
The Court reads the Statement of Decision as applying to the “disputed area” in particular. There does not appear to be any question that Plaintiffs have fenced around the disputed area. What appears at issue here is additional fencing located outside of the disputed area. By Defendants’ own admission, wire fencing already exists at these additional areas. (Haubold Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendants argue that the wire fence needs to be replaced as it is a fire hazard and falling apart. (Ibid.) Elsewhere, they argue that the wire fence is not on the true property line and needs to be moved. (Memo P & A, p. 3:16-19.)
Relocating portions of the fence outside of the “disputed area” was not contemplated by the Statement of Decision. Nor was it implicit in the Court’s statement that beyond the disputed area, the parties must comply with the applicable law (Civil Code section 841). This was merely a statement that unlike the terms of the Statement of Decision which required Plaintiff to bear the cost of new fencing in the disputed area, the fencing outside that specific area was governed by generally applicable law.
To the extent the Motion purports to be one for Enforcement of the Statement of Decision, the requested relief goes beyond what was authorized by the Statement and it is DENIED without prejudice on that ground. To the extent the Motion seeks Enforcement of Civil Code section 841, it is similarly DENIED without prejudice. Bringing such a claim would require a separate civil action and resolution of the claim on the merits would generally come only after Motion for Summary Judgment or Trial.
All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.
CV2103050
The Zoom appearance information for May, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1 Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070
If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov
3