IIFe 0H

HC e

RECENT COURT

DECISIONS HAVE

DRAMATICALLY

ALTERED THE

TERMS OF

BOUNDARY

DISPUTE

LITIGATION

henRobertFrost’sneighbortoldhim “good fencesmake goodneighbors,’theprobablymeantawell-built fenceon atruebound-ary line. Evensmall deviationsbetweena fenceand a trueboundarylinecanengendervig-

orousdisputes.Thesedisputescommonlyarisebecausea fence,hedge,or wall iserectedon the wrong side of a recordedboundaryline, and fencestend to conferexclusivepossessiontu the neighborsoneither side.Yearspass,a saleor new con-structionis imminent,asurveyis made,andthen, theneighborwith recordtitle suestorecoverpossessionofthenow-disputedland,Such boundarydisputesamongneighborshaveincreasedin the Los Angelesareaaspropertyownersbuild everlargerstructuresonexistinglotswithin theconfinesofrequiredsetbacksfrom the boundaries.

Theoutcomein thesecasesis difficult topredict.Both sidesfeeljustified in theirposi-tions,oneneighborhavinggrownaccustomed

to the useof thedisputedproperty,andtheotherhavingrecordtitle. In thepast,recordtitle over a disputedareahasoften beendefeatedby possession,which, asthesayinggoes,is nine-tenthsof the law. But apair ofrecentdecisionshasnow precipitouslytiltedtheplayingfield in favorof theneighborwithrecordtitle,

After Silacciv. Adamson~andMehdizadehv. Mincer,

7 neighborsin possessionmustproveeitherthat theyhavepaid i-cal propertytaxeson the disputedpropertyor that therewasuncertaintyasto thelocationof thetrueboundary.As a practicalmatter, however,neighborsin possessionof disputedprop-erty never pay the taxes on it, and a trueboundaryis rarelyuncertainsinceit canbeascertainedby a survey.As a result, therequirementsof thesecaseswould appeartobe impossibleto meet.Although theseopin-ions thusseemto heraldanendto boundary-dispute litigation, resourcefulpractitionerscanstill developstrategiesthatmayproviderelieffor theneighborin possession.

Thetypical boundary-disputelawsuit, inwhich either neighbormaybe the plaintiff,involves a fairly straightforwardquiet titleclaim by theneighborwith record title,becausethelaw presumesthis personto bein possessionof the land describedin thedeed.1To achievethegoalof exclusiveuseofthedisputedproperty,aneighborin posses-sion must prevailon the more problematicclaims of adversepossession,prescriptiveeasement,or agreedboundary.5

Not surprisingly,thereareparallelsamongthesethreelegal theories.The doctrinesofadversepossessionandprescriptiveease-mentputtheclaimantto four dauntingtests:The adverseclaimantmust have held pos-session1) for five consecutiveyears,2) in amannerthat is “openandnotorious,”3) under“a claim of title,” and4) in a mannerthat is“hostile to thetrue owner.”6

Mark L. Shareis an attorneywit/i Dc Castro, West,C/iodoroii’, GlicAfrld & Miss, Inc. in Westwood.310-478-254]

ISSUE

eBY MARK L. SHARE

30 LOS ANGELES LAWYER / JANUARY 1997

Paymentofpropertytaxeshaslongbeenal-I additionaltouchstonein adverseposses-sion claims. For more than a century, thelegislaturehas requiredthat claimantsattemptingto obtaintitle to land by adversepossessionshowthat they “have paid alltaxes,.”~~In this context, “all taxes” meanstaxesfor eachof thefive consecutiveyearsof

possessionnecessaryto establishtitle byadversepossession.The typical adverseclaimantin aboundarydispute—evenif all oftheelementsregardingpossessionareestab-lished—cannotprove paymentof taxes,becausetaxesareassessedandpaid accoid-ing to the recordtitle.

Traditionally, the difficulty of establish-ingau adversepossessionclaim hasdonelit-tle to discouragelitigation of boundarydis-putes. Neighborsin possessionhave beenable to advancetheir goal ofexclusiveuseofa neighbor’sland throughprescriptiveease-ments.Sinceaneasementrefersto aright tousepropertyof anothei;8it is somethingof astretchto usethatclaimto resolveabound-ary dispute,in which both sideswant titleand exclusiveuse.The courtsaccordinglyrecognizethatwhentheuseto beestablishedis exclusive—suchasin aboundarydispute—aprescoptiveeasementamountsto title to thedisputedproperty.”

The advantageof seekingan exclusiveprescriptiveeasementwasthat,until Silacci,

the advem-seclaimantdid not needto havepaidpropertytaxes.°’Asa leadingrealprop-ertytreatisestates:“In somecasestheuseissufficientto establisheitheratitle or anease-ment,butthe possessorcanonly acquit-caneasementbecausehedid not pnythetaxesasrequiredfor adversepossession.”

In Siiacci,however,thecourtruledthataneasementcannotbeusedto effectivelyobtainownership.That ruling hasmadethepre-scriptive—easementdoctrine inapplicabletoboundarydisputesamongprivatelandowners.The caseinvolveda fencedisputebetweenresidentialneighbors.TheAbramsons’backfencewason land includedin Silacci’s deed,andSilacci suedto i-ecoverthedisputedland.Not only hadthelive-yearprescriptiveperiodapparentlypassed,but five ownersprior toSilacci hadfailed to file a lawsuit challengingthetiespass,althoughthreehadcomplained.With the requirementsof hostile, continu-ous,andexclnsiveusefor thestatutoryperiodmet, the trial court awardedAbramsontheexclusiveuseof Silacci’spropertyfor a“back-yardgardenarea.”

That, accordingto theconventionalwis-dom of therealpropertytreatise,would nor-mally have beenthe end of the matter: “Areview of the decisionsconfirmsthat anycaseinvolving aprescriptiveright is won orlost in thetrial court,andthatanappealis gen-erally oflittle value.”7Nonetheless,thecourt

of appealreversed.The Silaccicourt focusedon the basic

difference betweenadversepossession(which conferstitle to disputedproperty)and prescriptiveeasement(which confers“merely” aright of use).Thecourtwasboth-eredthat an exclusiveeasementblurs thedistinction,becauseit essentiallygivesawaythetitle holders’ “land completely, withoutreservation.”3Ontheotherhai,d,the remedyof an exclusiveeasementhaslong beendis-cussedin caselaw and treatises,andwasgrantedin at leastone reportedcase,OtayWaterDistnictv.Beckzeith.’

1Thecourt limitedOtay WaterIJi.sta-ict “to its difficult andpecu-liar facts” involving the public interestandreversedthe trial court: “An exclusivepre-scriptiveeasementis, nonetheless,a veryunusualinterestin land. The notion of anexclusiveprescriptiveeasement,which asapracticalmattercompletelyprohibits the trueownerfrom usinghis land,hasno applicationto asimplebackyarddisputelike this one-””With that language,possession,evenwhennolegal action is takenby numerousrecordownersoveraperiodof yearsexceedingthestatuteof limitations, wassubordinatedtorecordtitle and thetax collector.As Silacciconcludes,if theAbramsonshadpaid prop-ertytaxes,thentheywould haveanadversepossessionclaim—not an exclusive-pre-scriptive-easementclaim—andso the casewasremandedto thetrial court to determinewhetherthosetaxeshadbeenpaid.

Silacci reasonedthat easementsdifferfundamentallyfrom fee ownership.Holdersof feetitle havetheentirebundleof sticksofpropertyownership,thebenefitsandthebur-dens.To acquirea fee inte,’est by adversepossession,onemusthaveassumedthebur-dens,includingpaymentof taxes,In contrast,theownerof aneasement,like a lessee,lackssomebenefitsandmaybe relievedof someburdens,including the paymentof taxes.There wasto the Silacci court somethingunseemly,however,when by a prescriptiveeasementtheadvei-seclaimantseeksall thesticks conferringbenefits without havingacceptedthosethatbearthebu,’dens.

Any doubt as to whethertheSecondDistrict Courtof Appealwould follow theFourthDistrict’s lend in Silacciwasremovedwith theMehd-izadehdecision,Thescenaiioin this casewasalso afencedisputebetweenresidentialneighbors.Theclaimanthad notpaid taxeson the disputedproperty (andsocould not establishadversepossession),butthetrial courtgrantedanexclusivepresc,’ip-Live easement.On appeal,the recordown-ersof thepropertyarguedthat thetrial court’sgrantingof an exclusivepresc,iptiveease-mentamountedto “adversepossessiontindertheguiseofa ‘prescriptiveeasement.”6Citing

Bearing the Cost of Litigation

A t sonicpoint in aboundarydispute,particularlywhen it comes time to pay,the partieswill probablyremembertheir title pol,cies.Although materialencroachmentsareunde-niably defectsin title, -title policiesgenerallyexcludeboundary/encroachmentdisputes

from their coverage,TheCalifornia Land Title Association(CLTA) StandardPolicy Form gener-ally nsuresonly againstmattersof recordtitle, which do not includeunrecordedeasementsandencroachments.Forasubstantiallyhigherfee, apropertyownermay obtain extendedcoveragefor un,’ecordeddefectsunderaCLTA policy or throughan AmericanLand Title AssociationLoanPolicy; but again,if theinsLirer discoversaboundarydisputeupon conductir,gasui’vey, thatdis-puteis going to bespecificallyexcludedfrom coverage.

Another sourceof coverageis a generalliability insurancepolicy. if one neighborsuesanotherneighborfor damages,suchason atrespassornuisancetheory,’ basedon theuncon-senteduseof thedisputedland,the homeowners’policiesmay covereitherneighbor’scostsofdefense(which may includeprovingtitle).2

Finally, oncetitle is established,there nayremaintheproble,’nof what to do aboutanyimprove-mentson thedisputedpropertythatbelongto thelosing party. If theyareinsubstantial,andthelosing neighbordoesnot removethem,theprevailing neighborcanseekdamagesfor thecostsof removal, If the improvementsaresubstantial,eitherparty may wish to obtain an injunctionauthorizingtheir maintenanceorcompellingtheir removal,

Whetheran injunctionto removeimprovementson thedisputedpropertywill be grantedgen-erallyturns on theequitiesof eachcase.7Generally,if the encroachmentis apermanentstruc-tureandwasmade in a mistakenbelief that the improver held title, thecourtswill not requirethestructureto be removed.”However, theencroacherwill berequiredto paydamagesfor thecontinueduseof theproperty.” If aneighbordoesseekthe “forced i’e~’noval”of astructure,thentitle insuranceshouldprovideadefense,evenwith astandardCLTA policy.”—M.L.5.

SeeArrnitage,218 cal. App. 3d at 887, 267 cal, Rptr. at 399lawardingdamagesIortrespassand punitivedamagesafter reiectingagreedboundarydoctrine).

Borg v. Transan-,ericaInsuranceco.,47 cal. App. 4th 44a, 54 Cal. RptL 2d 811 (1996).‘warsawv. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc., 35 Cal, 3d 564, 572-573, 199 Cal. Rptr. 773, 777 (1984).

Brown nerby Hollywood Corp. v. Naton, 61 Cal. 2d 855, 050, 4OCa]. Rptr. 848, 860 (1964).“Brown Oerby Holiwood Cor~,61 Cal. 2d at 860, 40 Cal. Rptr. at851.6 Man,teckv. Lawyers Title Ins Co., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1294, 1301-1302,33Cal. Rptr. 7d 771, 775-776(1994).

32 LOS ANGELES LAWYER / JANUARY 1997

Si/acci, thecourtofappealrevei’serlthetrialcourtandmadeadversepossessionthesolebasisfor acquiringexclusiveuseof a neigh-bor’s pr’operty:“We hold thatwhenaclaimantcannotsatisfythe requim-ementsfor arlversepossession,the claimantmay unt receiveapresci’iptiveeasementwhich extendsso farthat it becomesthe equivalentof afeeinter-estanddispossessestherecordtitle nwnerls]of partof their property.”

The Me/adizade]tcourt’s approachto theissuebadmorefacetstitan theonetakeninSitacci,Ratherthanmerelyhold that exclusiveeasementsdo nut applyto privateboundarydisputes,Meiadizadehmakesthe require-mentsof exclusiveeasementsandadversepossessionidentical, The opinion also citesthe “general rule,,,which accordsdetermi-native legal effect to thedescriptionof landcontainedin adeed,”’~Theopinionconcludeswith a ratherbold pronouncementthat anexclr,siveeasementcould only be createdintentionally,i.e. neverby prescription.

The“agreedboundary”doctrine,thethirdlegalavenueavailableto neighborsin pos-sessionof disputedproperty but lackingrecord title, hasthe mostrelaxed requile-mentsof all ofthesedoctrines,in partbecauseit is acrealnreofcaselaw, As its nameimplies,theagreedboundarydoctrineresolvesbound-ary disputeswith referenceto adjacentlandowners’“agi’eements”asto theboundary.Thethreeeleisrentsto establishasuccessfulclaim underthis theoryare“uncertaintyastothe true boundaryline, an agreen3entbetweenthe adjacentownersestablishingthe line, and acceptanceand acquiescencein thatline [for fiveyearsj.‘°“

Becausethisdoct,’inepermitsatransferofrealpropertywithout awriting, unc:ertaintyasto the trueboundaryis necessarysothat thedoctrinedoesnot violate theStatuteofFrauds,Wherethe boundaryline wasinitially uncer-lain, suchthat no propertyis “intentionally”transferredby agreementto aboundarylisle,the courtshavefoundno violation,2’

Manyoldercasespermituncertaintyto beshownby the long-termmaintenanceof afencethat doesnot coincidewith the legalboundary.22As fur thesecondelement,thecasesdo not strictly requireanagreement,butwill imply anagreementfrom theconductoftheparties.23Thus,afenceto whichno objec-tion hasbeenmadecanbesufficientto estab-lish anagreementto establishaboundary.2”In fact, onecouldfind acaseto supportuhnostanypusitionunderthis doctrine,whichmightsimply becalled aform of estoppel.25In short,the agr’eecl-boumirlaryrloctrine provided—until quite recently—aformidableargumentby which the neighborin possessioncouldobtainafavorablesettlement,if nut art nut,’ightvictory in court,

Thatchangedin 1994,however,with theCaliforniaSupremeCourt’s decisionin Bryantv, Blevins,

2” In thatcase,thecourt held that

courtscannotiniply “uncertainty” as to apropertyline wheretheb’ueboundarycanbedeterminedthroughavailablelegal records,such as tract mapsand deeds,Althoughcourtsof appealhadmadesimilar statementspreviously,27other courtsload disagreed.2”The CaliforniaSupremeCourtdirectly con-fronted the issue of whetherrecord titleshould prevail againstestoppeIby posses-sion, and choserecord title. Elevatingsur-veying to a quasi-religiousexperience,thecourt deferredto “the sanctityof true audIaccuratelegal descriptions,”2”The courtstatedthat it would not permit the agreedboundarydoctr’ine “to trump the boundaryestablishedby thelegal record,.,”3”

Accordingto the Mehdizadehcnurt,theagreedboundarydoctrine’spurposeis to“securereposeandpreventlitigation.”2’ But,afterBryant,the burdenofproof imposedontheneighborin possessionwassignificantlyheightenedin casesin which legal recordsfurnisha reasonablebasisfor fixing thetrueboundary.In thosecases,the neighborinpossessionmustestablishthat the,ewassub-jectiveuncertaintyandthatthepartiesthere-fore madeanagreementto fix theboundaryat a particularplace. However, in casesinwhich the legal recordsare inadeciuatetosettleaboundarydispute,thecoLirts can stillimply an agreementto fix a boundaryat a

fenceline,22 Apparently,thecourtsintendthatby makingtheburdenof proofmoreclif-ficult, litigantswill hediscouragedfrom niak-hog agreedbnundaryclaimsentirely.Thenil-ing in Bryant effectively forced manyneighborsin possessiontn rely on the doc-trineofexclusiveeasements,which is whytheholdingsin SilacciandMehdizartela,ostensi-bly makingexclusiveeasementsinapplica-ble, areso significant.

~ ithin this newlegalframework,whereadversepossessionand exclusive-prescriptive-easementclaims mustbesupportedby evidenceofpaymentoftaxes,andwhereagreedboundary

claims requiredirect proof of uncertainty,strategiesarestill available to protect theneighborwho is on the wrong side of thefence,While recordltitle holdersenjoyedsig-nificant victories in Sitacci andMehdizadeh,neighborsin possessionhave no causetogive up their land unconditionally.

Ia particular, attorneysfor adverseclaimantsseekingexclusiveprescriptiveease-mentsor adversepossessionshould not hehastyto stipulatethattheir clientdid notpaythe taxeson the disputedproperty.Forinstance,souseattorneyshaveadvanceda“visual assessment”theory,22underwhichthe adverseclaimantarguesthatthe fencemakesit appearthat therlisputedpropertyispart of the adverseclaimant’sparcel.The

(Cont/nued0,1 ,oage50)

4.~ir4h

LOS ANGELES LAWYER/JANUARY 1997 33

Don’t F•ncs M• Out the requirement itself, the adverse claimant down in places, then these facts tend to show(Cont/nuedfrom page33)

adverseclaimantwnuldthenaskthecourt toconcludethatthetax paymentrequirementhasbeensatisfied—thatis, eventhough theadverseclaimantdidnot paythetaxbill issuedfor thedisputedproperty,theclaimantactu-ally did paytaxeson the disputedpropertybecausetheclaimant’sown taxbill includedthe value of the disputedproperty,whicheveryonebelievedwaspartof his or her lot.

The visual assessmenttheory requiresevidenceof theactualmethodof assessment.The adverseclaimantwould needto pr’ovethatneitherthelandownersthemselvesnortheassessorreliedon asnrvey;instead,theyreliedon avisualassessmentoftherealprop-erty anditsvisualboundaries,i.e. on fences,Someclaimantsmay beable to bolstertheargumentthat the assessordid not rely onrecord title by invoking the constitutionalrequirement(sincethepassageofProposition13) that theassessmentof real propertybebasedon acquisitioncost,This cost,in turn,mayhavebeenbasednil a visual assessmentof propertyboundaries.If the encroachinglandownercanestablishthattheacquisitionprice—andtherebythe assessment—werebasedon the valueof thedisputedpropertyandimprovements,thentherequirementofthepaymentof taxeshasarguablybeensat-isfied,24

This acquisition-costapproachto provid-ing evidenceofthepaymentof taxeswould beespeciallyfiu’ceful in scenarioswherethe dis-putedpropertysignificantlyaffectsthevalueof theadverseclaimant’sproperty, eitherbecausethedisputedportion is intrinsicallyvaluableor becauseits losswould diminishthe value of the remainder,This might bethecase,forexample,whenthelossofasideyardwould causestructuresto he in violationof setbackrestrictions,

At the sametime, theclaimant maydirectlychallengetherequirementthat taxesmust havebeenpaid, In Gitardi v, Hal/amthe supremecourt declinedto addresstheapplicability ofthetaxpaymentrequirementto exclusivepm’escriptiveeasements.25It issomethingof a mystery—perhapsa nine-teenthcenturyploy by wealthy railroadstoderail squatters’claims—whyit shouldmat-ter betweenpm-ivntelandownerswho paid thelocal county,3”California is in theminority ofstatesto makepaymentof taxesa prerequi-site for adversepossession,27But it remainsdoubtful that, after 100 years,the adversepossessionrequirementsof Codeof CivilProcedureSectinn325 will heamended,2’

As analternativeto satisfyingthetaxpay-ment requirementunderthe visual-assess-mentoracquisition-costtheories,or attacking

may seekto be excusedfrom the require-ment by presentingevidenceon the as yetuntestedtheorythatit is impossibleto havepaid the taxeson the disputedproperty.Silacci andMehdizadehboth assumethatsuchtaxpaymentis possible.However, asapracticalmatter it may not be.The LosAngelesCountyAssessor,like all assessors,imposestaxesnitTy on propertyinterestsdis-closedin public records,andnot on portionsof lots thatni-c thesubjectof adverseclaints.°”In 1992, the legislatum’eamendedRevenueandTaxationCodeSection 610to provide:

Any personmayhavehis orhernamenddedto theassessmentroll for apar-ticularparcelof property if he or sheprovidestheassessorwith (‘3) adec-laration underpenaltynf perjurythathe or she is currentlyin possessionof the property and intends to beassessedin orderto perfecta claimby adversepossession,This statuteonly allows a personto pay

taxeson anotherperson’s“particularparcel”;it doesnot purportto allow the creationof anewparcelby suchadeclaration,Thus,whileit maybepossiblethranadverseclaimanttopay taxes on his or her neighbor’s entireproperty,it appearsto beimpossibleto paytaxeson the portion of theassessor’sparcelnumbercontainingtheeasement,In viewofthesebarriers,adverseclaimantsmayarguethattheycanobtain title without payingtaxesbecauseto paytaxeswould beimpossible,andasthe maxim of jum’isprudencestates,“Thelaw neverrequiresimpossibilities.”4”

This “impossibility” approachcanbemadeto scentless novel by invoking the well-acceptedproposition that, for adversepos-sessionandpi-escriptiveeasements,paymentof taxesis not requiredwhentheproperty istax exempt.That exceptionis am’guahly anexampleof theimpossibility exception,If thecourtsfollow Mehdizadeh’sposition thattherequirementsfor adversepossessionandpre-scriptive easententare identical, then thisargument(thatpaymentof taxesshould beexcusedbecauseonecannotpay taxeson apart of a parcel) will enablethe adverseclaimantto pmevailunderboth theories.

Ratherthan attemptingto satisfy,attack,or excusethetax paymentrequirement,theadverseclaimantmayinsteadconsiderseek-ing a nonexclusiveeasement,Nonexclusiveusesarebeyondthe holding of SUacciandwould not requirethe paymnentof taxes,Whetherthe easementis cham’acterizedasexclusiveor nnnexclusivedependson theuseof the land during the prescriptiveperiod.” For example,if thefencehasagatewithout a lock, or with a lock to which bothneighborshavekeys,or which hasfallen

thatthefencedid notcreateanexclusiveuseof thedisputedpropertyby theadverseclaimant.

l’Iowevem’, a nonexclusiveeasementmaynot bea desirableremedy;most neighbors,especiallylitigious ones,do not want to sham-ctheir property, Silacci arguablyforeclosedmtonexclusiveyardeasementsby quotingthetrial court’s statementthat “the privatelyenclosedareaof ahomedoesnot lenditselfto sham-eduse,”42Thus,pursuinganonexclu-sive easementmay be primarily usefulas ameansof encouragingthe recordowner tosettle,sinceneitherneighborwill want thecourt to split thebackyard.

In contrastto prescriptiveeasementsandadversepossession,which dependon thepaymentof taxes,theagm’eedboundarydoc-trine dependson uncertaintyoverthe trueboundary.As aresult, the first issue in liti-gatinganagreedboundaryclaint is whetherlegalrecordsprovideareasonablebasisforfixing thetrueboundary,If theydonot,thenthe neighborin possessionwill havetheadvantageunderthedoctrine,sincean agree’,nentmaystill beimplied when thereis directevidenceof uncertainty.

At leastoneof theneighborsmustobtainasurveyto confirm thelocationof thebound-ary. Finding the true boundarygenerallyrequiresavailablemonuments,Thesemon-umentsntaybedescribedin recordeddeedsor in tractmapsreferred to in the deeds,Next,onemustdeterntinewhetherthemon-uments can be located or are lost.Contemporarymonuments,such as brassmarkersin sidewalks,13aremorelikely to beavailablethan anciemttmonuments,suchastrees,If the monumentsare lost (or therehavebeenmaterial topographicchanges),locatingthe true boundaryline will requireconsiderableresearch,In suchcases,thelegal recordsalonemay not provide a“rea-sonable”basisfor fixing the boundary,andthat satisfiesthe requirementof objectiveuncertainty.”

Usingthe existingrecordeddocumentsandntonuments,asurveycan beperformnedby aregisteredcivil engineeror licensedlandsurveyor.45Both mteighborsshould! cooper~ate, It is not, however,generally necessarythatthesurveyorbeallowedaccessto anon-consentingneighbor’sland,4” It maybetempt~ing, but it is illegal, to removethestakeswhile a survey is being performed.47

(Com’respondingly,theneighborwith ,ecordtitle shoulrl not resort to tearingdown theencroachingfence;possessioncan only berestoredby thecnurts.49)

The surveycan establishuncertaintywhenthedescriptionof theboundaryin legalrecordsdoesnot coincidewith the mnnu-

50 LOS ANGELES LAWYER! JANuARY 1997

ments,becausethemonumentscontm’oI. Thisinconsistencyis morecnn]ntonin oldertracts,Public ,~ecordsmay yield someevidenceofthis inconsistency,becausesurveyorsrecorda“recordof survey”whenthereis arrmaterialdiscrepancybetweenrecordedinformationamtd field data,4’”

Incnnsisteuciesamongsurveyscan alsoestablish uncertainty.Theadverseclaimantshouldcommissionmultiplesurveysif themeare doubtsas to a first survey’sprecision.Theadverseclaimantshouldalsoseekpriorsurveys,whichmayhavebeenperformedtoobtain a title policyor nsaconditionfor con-structionof improvements(suchasto estab-lish that therewasnoencroachmentinto sideyard setbacks).For instamlce,in Kunza v,Gasket!,

2’”theproponentof recordtitle com-

missioned three surveyswith inconsistentresults,andthecourtconfirmedthefenceasthe agm’eed boundary.

Evenif the true boundaryhuecan rea-sonably be located from legal records, theadverseclaimantstill has the opportunityto present direct evidencethat there wassubjective uncertainty among the cotermi-nous ownerswhen the fencewasbuilt, andthat they intended thefenceto resolve thatuncertainty.This burdenmay not be asonerous as it first appears. In Bryant, theCalifornia SupremeCourt reaffirmed itshold-ing in Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church2’ thatthe burdenwasmet by evidencethat theneighbor performed a surveydim’ectly beforebuilding an encroachingfence, sidewalk,and structure, Conducting a survey“presum-ably” establisheduncertainty, and buildingthe fenceshowcd un agreementto resolveit. The legislature has also easedthe bur-den by making admissiblehearsay evidencefront unavailablewitnessesregardingbound-ary lines,’2

As a pm’actical matter, in this type of dis-pute, which is oftenwithoutsignificanteco-nomic benefit to either mieighhor, other cnn-siderations can createan atmosphereforvoluntary resolution, The cost of litigatinn,except to the extent that it is defrayed byinsurance (see“Bearing the Cost of Litiga-tion,” page 32); the anxiety causedby suingneighbors; and the inability to sell propertywhile litigation is pending (particularly if ailspendenshas been recorded) may all lead tosettlement,

If the parties agreeto abide by the trueboundary, then the adverse claimant mightsurrender possessionin exchangefor therecord ownerbearing the cost of relocatingthe fenceand perhaps making other conces-sions relating to the design of the fence.Alternatively, the partiesmay agreethat theadverseclaimant holds only a revocablelicense for a limited use, thereby allowing

EXPERT

LITIGATION

CoNSt LI ING,

MULTIMEDIA,

D [SIR U CT IV E

TESTING &

CONSTRUCTION

DEFECT

RESTORATION

SERVICES

• Expert Witness in the fields of Construction,Psychology,Medicine & Economics

• Construction DefectFailure Analysis

• Contract IssueAnalysis - Liability Allocation

• Building Safety Evaluation

• Cost Estimates

4 CPM Scheduling & Delay Claims

4 Remedial Design/Build Construction

4 Personal Injury

4 Mediation Presentation

• Evidence Preservation Storage

4 Trial Graphics, Animation &Computer Presentations

TOLL FREE: (800) 576-7264

Riverside • Los Angeles + Sacramento • San Leandro • Las Vegas,NV

YOUR WAY OUR WAYI11r~m7flhM Scan200 Software allow, you to View. Print, and Edit your F’ile, tight onyour Laptop or Desktop in any Windowi”” 3,1 /95 environment. Take the CD Home or toCourt, The Software is Burned right onto each CD, Full Document Profiling. Work~onNetworks ~ TM takes your boxes. Scans. OCR.. and Indexes—providing enElectronic File Cabinet right on your computer. Stores 30.000 page. or more on one CDF30iV1 - flj Ii Soolean Search caRa~i I ities

Easy and fun to use! Call or e-mail for a free demo

l-800’Ciletronfax 213-720-1709

filetron TM

1536 Gage Road Flontebello, CA 90640 WLB Site WWW.filetron.come-mail Sales ~ rimetron,com

PCMI 7~QEzfte’te ea&ee®

LOS ANGEtES LAWYER! JANOARY 1997 51

the adverseclaim;uat to continue in possession 148 c2

i. Rptr. 495,498 (1978) (fixing agreedboumtcla~

ig & Consulting Corporationg — Expert Testimony— Consulting

than 25 yenrs of experience.id more than 100 insurancecompanies.

~nalysis 4’ Constructionml Science / Metallurgy <a Environmentalnical Engineering -0- Electricalnd Machinery <a Toxicologyvice - We welcome all Inquiries

-500-5561 Fax: 916-481-3095-3872 Fax: 415-342-551290-0409 Fax: 714-660-9194

LITHERN CALIFORNIA LAW School.

HI ANNUALE ON FEDERAL

[otel, Beverly Hillstnd 15, 1997

Planningprogramhighlighting:

!g, including consolidatedm’eturn issues;leveragedrecaps;financial accountingplnnning involving financial products;e tai lorimmg; andcompensationissuesin

closely—heldcorporations

eatEstate Tax Planning, including:.ent tax law dcvcloplllcnts; choicenI

rnaximizing capitalgain treatmentoil

nternational tax p tanning for naotionhi lily of loamloul corporations;curremitlotion picture and television industry;any real estateworkouts; planning

ransnctionsunderSections1031, 1033,for debtworkouts

tog theadministrativetrust; designatillgneeoumlts; generationskippimlg trallsfer

x traps in boilerplate provisions; and

pursuein greaterdepth someof the~ram,as well as charitableremainderliens and their I’amihies; planningandhe Internet in a tax practice;employeend planning to avnit1 a “hobby loss’’

his activity has been approved forredit by the State Bar of California in

witllout arisk to the ecordowmserthat suchpossessionwill m-ipen into title,

If thepartiesselectabound�u-yotherthanthetrue boundary,theywill facesomepro-cedural thickets, Although lot-line adjust-nlentsareexcktcledfrom therequirementsofthe Stmbdivisioll Map Act,-°the Los AngelesCounty Departmentof RegionalPlanning34

imposesaburdensomeapplicationin ordertoobtainn consenstmallot—line adjustmemlt.Thepartiesmay he able to bypassthe county’spmocedut’esby stipulatingto ajudgmllemltestab-lishingthe agreedboundary,sincethepartiescan obtain marketabletitle~and a revisedtaxhill by ajtmdgmentcreatingOr veri~rillganintemesfin property?”

Despitethe recentcourt decisions,bound-ary disputesamongneighborsareboundtocontinuedueto theimlcreaseddensityofdevel-opnlentand tensionsbetweenthe policiesthat favorpossessionvet-sosthepoliciesthatfavor record title. Counselwill, therefore,continueto be called upon to applycreativeandwell-foundedapproachesto sectaretitle todisputedproperty.

R. ProsE,“MemadimigWall”(l 914).2 Silacei v. Abranason,45 Cat. App. 4th 558, 53 Cal.

Rptr. 2cl 37 (1996).Melidizadehv, Mincer,46 Cal.App. 4th 1296,54Cal.

Rplr. 2d284(1996).Coun Civ. Patac,1321; Mask v. Sumnmerland

SpirilualistAss’n225Cal, App. 2d 376,381-382,37Cal.Rpu’. 366, 369 (1964).

U ifterematprinciplesapply to im structurebuilt entirelycia another’s limrmd, Time rules govermumigstmeh “good

faith iramprovemnents’’arethe subjectof a pentliar blendof statuteamact easelaw andwere let affectedby Silacci,45 Cal. App.4th 558,53 Cal, Rptr. 2ct 37.SeeCOPECiv.PatIc. §1871.[‘371.7 (“good-faith improverstattmIc”).

Gitardi v, Hallam, 31) Cal. 3d 117. 321, 178 Cal. Rptr.

624,626 (1981) (claim foradversepessessiomtof portionof lot rejected becausetaxes maul paid; prescriptiveeaaenmentissuemaul rttisedby partmes)

CoonCiv, Pmsoc,§325.ConaCiv, Ptnn.§887.010.Raahv, Casper.51 Cal. App. 3d 866,876-77,124 Cal.

Rptr. 590, 596 (1975) (exclusivepossessiomiul neigh-

bor’s laud for yarn involvesclaim for adversetaosses-alma, no) prescriptiveeasemnent)

Paymentof taxesis requiredonly lit therareeaseinwhich Lime easementhas beenseparatelyassessed.

(;itardi, 30 Cal. 3d at 321-22. 178Cal. Rptr. at 626.° 5 H. Mtt.E.tia ASC M. STaRS, Ccttsi’:NT L

4sw 0 F Cot

m’etxio PeAt. EsTATe§15:29 at 473 (2dcit 1989).

IA §t5:3 1 n,10, at 478.Silaeci,45 Cal. App.4th at 564.Otay WalerDial. v. Beckwith, 1 Cat. App. 4th to~IL.

3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 223 (1991) (granr of exclusiveease-naent fur a reaemveirnot eotaaparabteto feetitle becauseul usetestrietiemt)C Silacci,45 CaL App. 4th at 561.

Mehctizacteh,46 Cat. App. 4th at t304-05.iT uI at 1300.

Id. at. 1308.Id. (eititag Pasadenav. Catifum’tua-M ieliigan Lantrl &

Water Co., 17 Cal, 2d 576,578-79. tIlt t’. 2d 983. 985

(11*11)).

at femace Iimt e: inie boundamy unc’ertatmi elite to lost nlon-

tunerIs)Metlev, Weaver,36 Cat. 2d 456. 459. 224P. 2d 691.

692-93 (1950).Ernie v, Trinity Lutlienui Church.St Cal 2d 702. 708,

336 P.2d 525,529 (1959).2.i Frenrhv. Brinlcnaamt,60 Cat. 2d 547. 552-53,35 Cal.

Rptt.289, 292-93 (1963).Vclla v, Ratto,17 Cal. App.3d 737, 740.95Cal. Rptr.

72,74(1971).

22 Runiami v. Pies, 259C’at. App. 2d 65, 68,66 Cal. RpEr.120, 122(1968).

Btyantv, Btevins, 9 Cat, 4th 47, 58.36 Cat, Rptn 2d

86 (1994).

22 Aj’mitage v. Decker,2L8 Cat. App.3d 887, 902-03,267Cal, RpLt. 399, 408 (1990)

Steelev. Shuler, 211 Cal, App. 2d 698, 704, 27 Cal,

Rptr.569, 572(1963).Biyant, 9 Cal..4Eh at 55, 36 Cal. Rptr. at 91.

Bmyamit, 9 Cal. ‘ttla aE 58, 36 Cal. Rptr. at 93.

Meladizacteh.46 Cal. App. 4that 1:304.22 Btyatat,9 Cal, 4th at 54-55,26 Cal. Rplr. at 90-91.

Pm’ice v. Dc Reyes,161 Cal. 484,490, 119 P.893.895

(1911).

Gilardi. 30 Cal. 3d at 327, 178 Cal. Rptr, at 624:Witachell v. Latnbert, t46Cal. App.2d 575, 582.304P.

2d 149. 154-55 (1956) (adverseelainaant’stax hiltiimcludect valueof itnprevernermtsen neighbor’slot).

Gilardi,30 Cal. 3d at 327, 178 Cat, Rptr.at 63(1.Note, Paytnen) of TaxesAsA (lone/then of Title By

Adeer.cePeasessieo:A NineteenthCentn,yAnee/mnonisam,9 S~rroCEARA L. Rev. 244. 264 (1969) (The otigita

and reasotasfor the tax paymnertt requirnmeimt...al-cobscure”).~ B. Witkin, Sttivtvmoay Os CAm.tposNmA In §110,at 330

(9th ed. 1987).Although §i’25, which precscnibesthe meansEu

establishadversepossession,doesnoten its facecoma-trol prescmiptiveeasements.Silacci and Mehdizadehhave tnterpretedit to govern exclusive prescriptiveeasements.

°SeeRev,SeT~.Coma-: §321 (defining egtml rlescriptinmi)and §602 (settitagforthcontentsof local roll).

~sCiv. Cent:: §3531.° Civ. Come§806.22 Silacei,45 Cat. App. 4th at 561.° Emis. & Peer.Cone§8771 m’eqtmiresnaomaumnemttslobe“suffleteimt in nunaberamtct durability.. to assure.. the

facile re-establishmentof anypaint or line of the sur-vey.”° Bryamit. 9 Cal. 4tta at 49-50, 36 Cal. Rptr.2d at 87.‘is Bus, & Pgom-’. Coon §8761.

Batace Bus,& Psoti.Coon§8774(generallypermitsa licensed surveyortn enteramty latmd, wiLhout notice.to tmem-Inrm a survey).

PENAL Coon §605.0 Allen v, MeMillion, 82 Cal. App. 3d 211, 216-20,147

Ca]. Rptr. 77, 81-84 (1978) (habilirv for trespass).a Bits. & Pmmot. Coon §8762.

Ktinza v, Gaskell,91 Cal. App. 3d 201, 205. 154 Cal.

Rptr. 101, 103(1979).Ernie,51 Cal. 2e1 702,336 P. 2d 525 (1959).Eve. Coon §1323.

25 Gev’T’ Cetoa§66112tel).Theaddressand telephonenumber of flue Lns

AngelesDepartmentof RegionalPlannimigis 320WestTemple Street, Roomn 1360, Lets Angeles.. California

90012,213!974-61it.Befom-e fihimig the action, the clainmant stleulel bit-

smder ehtai Ii ng a Ii tigariemigm tat’anteefront a title clanpany,wherebythe I itle insurerwilt guaramateethatif a

judgmentisobtainedagaimistthe partiesit believesarenecessary,it wilt issue a policy of title insmuamace.

Rev,A. TAL. Cone§611).[EON: (213) 740-2582

!i!leaqcinv. Shitoh Omchat’ds.84 Cal. App, 3d 192, t97,