Craw up an analysis/opinion letter to your client, Ms. Barbara Cortillo. Use the analyses and conclusions you reached in the Module 13 interoffice legal memorandum to draft the letter.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Does Cortillo have a valid claim against Gaston under California law?

1. Trespass since Cortillo gave Gaston consent based on fraudulent information to access Cortillo's property.
2. Trespass since Gaston been given consent based on a forged letter to photograph birds on the property but photographed a senator and Cowboy, a person she was having any affair with.

BRIEF ANSWER

1. No, Cortillo is not likely to have a valid claim for trespass against Gaston, even though Cortillo gave Gaston consent to enter Casa Cortillo based on a forged letter, consent was given, and no trespass took place.
2. Yes, under California Law, Cortillo is likely to be successful in a claim for trespass against Gaston due to exceeding the scope of consent, because Gaston told Cortillo she would be photographing endangered birds when she was taking photographs of the senator and Cowboy on the neighboring property Paradiso. Therefore, a claim would likely be successful for exceeding the scope of consent.

FACTS

Cortillo owns and resides in Casa Cortillo neighbors a property called Paradiso Gaston a photojournalist known for taking unauthorized photos of celebrities, found out from a contact that a prominent Senator was allegedly having an affair with a 26-year-old man named Cowboy. After conducting some research, Gaston learned that the Senator and Cowboy, the man she was having an affair with would be at Paradiso for the fourth of July. Gaston then hired a helicopter on July 1^st to fly over Paradiso and the surrounding area to get a better look at the property. Gaston noticed that a cleared knoll located on the south edge of Cortillo's property would be the best place to take her photographs. Gaston came to Casa Cortillo on July 3^rd with a forged letter of introduction from Nature Magazine and told Cortillo she wanted to photograph an endangered bird that was located on her property. Gaston then asked for permission to take the photos from her property and was authorized to do so by Cortillo. On July 4^th Gaston entered Casa Cortillo land and took photographs of the Senator and Cowboy together in the pool and other intimate activities. Gaston published the photos in a tabloid and Cortillo was asked about the photos by a neighbor after seeing the photographs. Cortillo was very upset by this.

ANALYSIS

Cortillo will likely have a valid claim for trespass against Gaston in California, even though Cortillo gave consent to Gaston to enter her land via a forged letter, the consent was still valid. Gaston did exceed the scope of the consent given by taking photographs of the Senator and Cowboy Rathan rather than of the endangered birds, constituting trespass. California law considers trespass an unauthorized entry onto the land of another without their consent, Miller v. Nat'l Broad Co., 232 Cal. Rptr. 668, 670 (Ct. App. 1986), Baugh v. CBS, Inc., 828 F. Supp.745, 750 (N.D. Cal. 1993) or by exceeding the scope of the consent, consisting of a person entering onto another's land with limited consent surpassing the limits granted while being on the land. Baugh, 828 F. Supp. At 750, Manginii v. Aerojet-Gen. Corp.,230 Cal. App. 3d 1125, 1126 (1991)

Unauthorized Entry onto Cortillo's Land

Cortillo will not likely have a claim against Gaston for trespassing by exceeding the scope of consent, since Cortillo gave her consent to Gaston for entry onto her land. Even though it was obtained by fraudulent means.

Trespass is an unauthorized entry onto the land of another, Miller, 232 Cal. Rptr. at 670. Cortillo would need to prove the defendant did not receive consent to enter her land. Even if that consent was obtained by fraudulent means or misrepresentation. Baugh, 828 F. Supp. at 750.

In Miller, an NBC camera crew entered the Millers' apartment without their permission and filmed the paramedic attempt to resuscitate the plaintiff's husband, who had suffered a heart attack. Miller, 232 Cal. Rptr. at 670. The NBC film crew filmed and broadcast the incident with the consent of the Miller family. Id. At 673. Here the court held that NBC did indeed trespass because they entered the Miller's apartment without their permission and could be seen as offensive to a reasonable person. Id. At 688. In the Baugh case, Yolanda Baugh (Baugh) called the police to report a domestic violence incident between Baugh and her Husband. Baugh, 828 F. Supp. at 750. In the kitchen, Baugh was discussing what happened with a police officer, and heard people coming into her home., she was told by the officer, that they were with a crisis team that assisted domestic violence victims and here to do a segment for the DA's office and that CBS wouldn't broadcast the footage commercially and Baugh then consented to CBS to enter her property and film her. Id. 756. CBS aired the footage on television. The court held there is no dispute that Baugh gave the CBS camera crew consent to enter her property and the CBS crew did not exceed the scope of that consent while on the land. If there is consent then there is no trespass, there is no dispute that Baugh gave the CBS camera crew consent to enter her property. Gaston received consent to enter Cortillo's land unlike the camera crew in the Miller Case, but both published their film and photos publicly. In both of these cases, the defendants were accused of trespassing after pictures and film were released after they left the property. In both cases, the defendants obtained consent by fraud. Consent in the Baugh case was obtained with assistance from the police officer, where Gastons used a forged letter to obtain consent. Cortillo having given consent is unlikely to have a claim for trespass due to unauthorized entry on land.

Exceeding Scope of Consent

Cortillo is likely to have a claim against Gaston for trespass due to her exceeding the scope of consent when Gaston entered her property. Trespass may occur when a person entering the property of another with consent exceeds the scope of the consent granted. Baugh, 828 F. Supp. at 750, Mangini, 230 Cal. App. At 1126. In Mangini, the plaintiff purchased property that was filled with hazardous waste and filed a suit accusing Aerojet-General of negligence and recouping expenses for cleanup due to government cleanup orders and various fees. Id. 1127. Mangini alleged that Aerojet violated the terms of their lease by failing to clean up the property specified in their lease and for uses not permitted. The court sustaining Aerojet-General's demurrer, the trial court improperly cut short Mangini's ability to tie Aerojet-General's conduct to the land's contamination, to show that this conduct was unlawful, and to prove that this conduct injured both the public and Mangini herself. As to trespass, Mangini's pleadings do not question Aerojet-General's right to be on the land as its lessee, but question only whether that lease authorized Aerojet-General to contaminate the land and imposed a cleanup obligation that Aerojet-General ignored. The defendants Mangini and Gaston were accused of trespassing due to exceeding the scope of consent and under false pretenses and not adhering to the activities they had consent for. In Mangini, the subject of trespass was the hazardous waste being the subject of a continuous trespass. In the Baugh case, the film crew was alleged to have exceeded the scope of consent, having lied about what they were filming for to the plaintiff, they weren't on the property when they exceeded their scope of consent. The scope of consent must be exceeded while they're on the property of the plaintiff. Therefore, by Gaston being on Cortillo's property when the scope of consent was exceeded, it is likely the elements of trespassing will be met.

CONCLUSION

Since Cortillo gave her consent to Gaston to enter her property, it is unlikely she will be successful in a claim for trespass against Gaston for unauthorized entry. However, Cortillo is likely to be successful in her claim against Gaston for trespass based on exceeding the scope of consent by photographing the Senator and Cowboy instead.