ISSUE RECENT COURT DECISIONS HAVE II0H DRAMATICALLY ALTERED THE FeHCe TERMS OF BOUNDARY DISPUTE BY MARK L. SHAREe LITIGATION

hen Robert Frost’s neighbortold to the use of the disputed property, and the The typical boundary-dispute lawsuit, in him “good fences make good other having record title. In the past, record which either neighbor may be the plaintiff, t neighbors,’ he probablymeanta title over a disputed area has often been involves a fairly straightforward quiet title well-built fence on a true bound- defeated by possession, which, as thesaying claim by the neighbor with record title, ary line. Even small deviations goes, is nine-tenths of the law. But a pair of because the law presumes this personto be between a fence and a true recentdecisions has now precipitously tilted in possession of the land described in the 1 boundary line can engender vig- the playing field in favorof theneighbor with deed. To achieve the goal of exclusive useof orous disputes. These disputes commonly record title, the disputed property, a neighbor in posses- arise because a fence, hedge, or wall is After Silacci v. Adamson~and Mehdizadeh sion must prevail on the more problematic 7 erected on the wrong side of a recorded v. Mincer, neighbors in possession must claims of adverse possession, prescriptive 5 boundary line, and fences tend to confer prove either that they have paid i-cal property easement, or agreed boundary. exclusive possession tu the neighbors on taxes on the disputed property or that there Not surprisingly, thereare parallels among either side. Years pass, a sale or new con- was uncertainty as to the location of the true these three legal theories. The doctrines of struction is imminent, a survey is made, and boundary. As a practical matter, however, adverse possession and prescriptive ease- then, the neighbor with record title sues to neighbors in possession of disputed prop- ment put the claimant to four daunting tests: recover possession ofthe now-disputed land, erty never pay the taxes on it, and a true The adverse claimant must have held pos- Such boundary disputes among neighbors boundary is rarely uncertain since it can be session 1) for five consecutive years, 2) in a have increased in the Los Angeles area as ascertained by a survey. As a result, the manner that is “open andnotorious,” 3) under property owners build ever larger structures requirements of these cases would appearto “a claim of title,” and 4) in a manner that is 6 on existing lots within the confines ofrequired be impossible to meet. Although these opin- “hostile to the true owner.” setbacks from the boundaries. ions thus seem to herald an endto boundary- The outcomein these cases is difficult to dispute litigation, resourceful practitioners Mark L. Share is an attorney wit/i Dc Castro, West, predict. Both sides feel justified in their posi- can still develop strategies that may provide C/iodoroii’, GlicAfrld & Miss, Inc. in Westwood. tions, oneneighbor having grown accustomed relieffor the neighbor in possession. 310-478-254]

30 LOS ANGELES LAWYER / JANUARY 1997 Payment ofproperty taxes has long been the advem-se claimant did not need to have of appeal reversed. al-I additional touchstone in adverse posses- paid property taxes.°’Asa leading real prop- The Silacci court focused on the basic sion claims. For more than a century, the erty treatise states: “In some cases the useis difference between adverse possession legislature has required that claimants sufficient to establish either atitle or an ease- (which confers title to disputed property) attempting to obtain title to land by adverse ment, but the possessor can only acquit-c an and prescriptive easement (which confers possession show that they “have paid all easement because he did not pny the taxes as “merely” a right of use). The court wasboth- taxes,.”~~In this context, “all taxes” means required for adverse possession.” ered that an exclusive easement blurs the taxes for each of thefive consecutive years of In Siiacci, however, thecourt ruled that an distinction, because it essentially gives away easement cannot be used to effectively obtain the title holders’ “land completely, without possession necessary to establish title by 3 adverse possession. The typical adverse ownership. That ruling has made the pre- reservation.” Onthe other hai,d,the remedy claimant in a boundarydispute—even ifall of scriptive—easement doctrine inapplicable to of an exclusive easement has long been dis- the elements regarding possession areestab- boundary disputes among privatelandowners. cussed in case law and treatises, and was lished—cannot prove payment of taxes, The case involved a fence dispute between granted in at least one reported case, Otay 1 because taxes areassessed and paid accoid- residential neighbors. The Abramsons’back WaterDistnictv. Beckzeith.’ Thecourt limited ing to the record title. fence was on land included in Silacci’s deed, Otay Water IJi.sta-ict “to its difficult and pecu- Traditionally, the difficulty of establish- and Silacci sued to i-ecover thedisputed land. liar facts” involving the public interest and ing au adverse possession claim hasdone lit- Not only hadthe live-yearprescriptive period reversed the trial court: “An exclusive pre- tle to discourage litigation of boundary dis- apparently passed, but five owners prior to scriptive easement is, nonetheless, a very putes. Neighbors in possession have been Silacci hadfailed to file a lawsuit challenging unusual interest in land. The notion of an able to advance their goal ofexclusive use of the tiespass, although threehad complained. exclusive prescriptive easement, which as a a neighbor’s land through prescriptive ease- With the requirements of hostile, continu- practical matter completely prohibits the true ments. Since an easement refers to a right to ous, and exclnsiveusefor the statutory period owner from using his land, has no application 8 use property of anothei; it is something of a met, the trial court awarded Abramson the to a simple back yarddispute like this one-”” stretch to use that claim to resolve a bound- exclusive use of Silacci’sproperty for a “back- With that language, possession, evenwhen no ary dispute, in which both sides want title yard garden area.” legal action is taken by numerous record and exclusive use. The courts accordingly That, according to the conventional wis- owners overa period of years exceeding the recognizethat when the useto be established dom of thereal property treatise, would nor- statute of limitations, was subordinated to is exclusive—such as in a boundary dispute— mally have been the end of the matter: “A record title and the tax collector. As Silacci a prescoptive easement amounts to title to the review of the decisions confirms that any concludes, if theAbramsons had paid prop- disputed property.” case involving a prescriptive right is won or erty taxes, then they would have an adverse The advantage of seeking an exclusive lost in the trial court, and that an appeal is gen- possession claim—not an exclusive-pre- 7 prescriptive easement was that, until Silacci, erally oflittle value.” Nonetheless, the court scriptive-easement claim—and so the case was remanded to the trial court to determine whetherthose taxes had beenpaid. Bearing the Cost of Litigation Silacci reasoned that easements differ t sonicpoint in a boundary dispute, particularly when it comes time to pay, the parties fundamentally from fee ownership. Holders will probably remember their title pol,cies. Although material encroachments are unde- of feetitle have the entire bundle of sticks of A niably defects in title, -title policies generally exclude boundary/encroachment disputes property ownership, thebenefits and the bur- from their coverage, The California Land Title Association (CLTA) Standard Policy Form gener- dens. To acquire a fee inte,’est by adverse ally nsures only against matters of record title, which do not include unrecorded easements and possession, onemust haveassumed thebur- encroachments. For a substantially higherfee, aproperty owner may obtain extended coverage dens, including payment of taxes, In contrast, for un,’ecorded defects under a CLTA policy or throughan American Land Title Association Loan the owner of an easement, like a lessee, lacks Policy; but again, if the insLirer discoversa boundary dispute upon conductir,g a sui’vey, that dis- some benefits and may be relieved of some pute is going to be specifically excluded from coverage. burdens, including the payment of taxes. Another source of coverage is a general liability insurance policy. if one neighbor sues another neighborfor damages, such as on a trespass or nuisance theory,’ based on the uncon- There was to the Silacci court something sented use of the disputed land, the homeowners’ policies may covereither neighbor’s costs of unseemly, however, when by a prescriptive 2 defense (which may include proving title). easement the advei-se claimant seeks all the Finally, once title is established, there nay remain the proble,’n of what to do about any improve- sticks conferring benefits without having ments on the disputed property that belong to the losing party. If they are insubstantial, andthe accepted those that bear the bu,’dens. losing neighbor does not remove them, the prevailing neighbor can seek damages for the costs Any doubt as to whether the Second of removal, If the improvements are substantial, either party may wish to obtain an injunction District Court of Appeal would follow the authorizing their maintenance or compelling their removal, Fourth District’s lend in Silacci was removed Whetheran injunction to removeimprovements on the disputed property will be granted gen- 7 with theMehd-izadeh decision, The scenaiio erally turns on the equities of each case. Generally, if the encroachment is a permanent struc- in this case was also afence dispute between ture and was made in a mistaken belief that the improver held title, the courts will not require residential neighbors.The claimant had not the structure to be removed.” However, the encroacher will be required to pay damages for the continued use of the property.” If a neighbor does seek the “forced i’e~’noval”of a structure, then paid taxes on the disputed property (and so title insurance should provide a defense, even with a standard CLTA policy.”—M.L.5. could not establish adverse possession), but the trial court granted an exclusive presc,’ip- SeeArrnitage, 218 cal. App. 3d at 887, 267 cal, Rptr. at 399 lawarding damages Iortrespass and punitive Live easement. On appeal, the record own- damages after reiecting agreed boundary doctrine). Borg v. Transan-,erica Insurance co., 47 cal. App. 4th 44a, 54 Cal. RptL 2d 811 (1996). ers of the property argued that the trial court’s ‘warsawv. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc., 35 Cal, 3d 564, 572-573, 199 Cal. Rptr. 773, 777 (1984). granting of an exclusive presc,iptive ease- Brown nerby Hollywood Corp. v. Nat on, 61 Cal. 2d 855, 050, 4OCa]. Rptr. 848, 860 (1964). ment amounted to “adverse possession tinder “Brown Oerby Holiwood Cor~,61 Cal. 2d at 860, 40 Cal. Rptr. at 851. 6 6 Man,teck v. Lawyers Title Ins Co., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1294, 1301-1302,33 Cal. Rptr. 7d 771, 775-776(1994). the guise ofa ‘prescriptive easement.” Citing

32 LOS ANGELES LAWYER / JANUARY 1997 Si/acci, the court ofappeal revei’serl the trial court and made adverse possession the sole basis for acquiring exclusive use of a neigh- bor’s pr’operty: “We hold that when aclaimant cannot satisfy the requim-ements for arlverse possession, the claimant may unt receive a presci’iptive easement which extends so far that it becomes the equivalent of a fee inter- estand dispossesses the record title nwnerls] of part of their property.” The Me/adizade]t court’s approach to the issue bad more facets titan the one taken in 4. Sitacci, Ratherthan merelyhold that exclusive ~ir4h easements do nut apply to private boundary disputes, Meiadizadeh makes the require- ments of exclusive easements and adverse possession identical, The opinion also cites the “general rule,,, which accords determi- native legal effect to the description of land contained in a deed,”’~Theopinion concludes with a rather bold pronouncement that an exclr,sive easement could only be created intentionally, i.e. never by prescription. The “agreedboundary” doctrine, thethird legal avenue available to neighbors in pos- session of disputed property but lacking record title, has the most relaxed requile- ments of all ofthese doctrines, in part because it is acrealnre ofcase law, As its name implies, 22 the agreedboundary doctrine resolves bound- That changed in 1994, however, with the fence line, Apparently, the courts intend ary disputes with reference to adjacent California Supreme Court’s decision in Bryant that by making the burden of proof more clif- 2 landowners’ “agi’eements” as to the boundary. v, Blevins, ” In that case, the court held that ficult, litigants will he discouraged from niak- The three eleisrentsto establish a successful courts cannot iniply “uncertainty” as to a hog agreed bnundary claims entirely. The nil- claim under this theoryare “uncertainty as to property line wheretheb’ue boundary can be ing in Bryant effectively forced many the true boundary line, an agreen3ent determined through available legal records, neighbors in possession tn rely on the doc- between the adjacent owners establishing such as tract maps and deeds, Although trine ofexclusiveeasements, which is why the the line, and acceptance and acquiescence courts of appeal had made similar statements holdings in Silacci andMehdizartela, ostensi- 27 2 in that line [for fiveyearsj .‘°“ previously, other courts load disagreed. ” bly making exclusive easements inapplica- Because this doct,’inepermits a transfer of The California Supreme Court directly con- ble, are so significant. real property without awriting, unc:ertaintyas fronted the issue of whether record title to the true boundary is necessary so that the should prevail against estoppeI by posses- ~ ithin this newlegal framework, where doctrine does not violate the Statute ofFrauds, sion, and chose record title. Elevating sur- adverse possession and exclusive- Where the boundaryline was initially uncer- veying to a quasi-religious experience, the prescriptive-easement claims must lain, such that no property is “intentionally” court deferred to “the sanctity of true audI be supported by evidence ofpayment 2 transferred by agreement to aboundarylisle, accurate legal descriptions,” ” The court oftaxes, andwhere agreedboundary 2 the courts have found no violation, ’ stated that it would not permit the agreed claims require direct proof of uncertainty, Manyolder cases permit uncertainty to be boundary doctr’ine “to trump the boundary strategies are still available to protect the 3 shown by the long-term maintenance of a established by the legal record,.,” ” neighbor who is on the wrong side of the fence that does not coincide with the legal According to the Mehdizadeh cnurt, the fence, While recordl title holders enjoyed sig- 22 boundary. As fur the second element, the agreed boundary doctrine’s purpose is to nificant victories in Sitacci and Mehdizadeh, 2 cases do not strictly require an agreement, but “secure repose and prevent litigation.” ’ But, neighbors in possession have no cause to will imply an agreement from the conduct of after Bryant, the burden ofproof imposed on give up their land unconditionally. 23 theparties. Thus, a fence to which no objec- the neighborin possession wassignificantly Ia particular, attorneys for adverse tion has beenmade can be sufficientto estab- heightened in cases in which legal records claimants seeking exclusive prescriptive ease- 2 lish an agreement to establish a boundary. ” furnish a reasonable basis for fixing the true ments or adverse possession should not he In fact, one could find a case to support uhnost boundary. In those cases, the neighbor in hastyto stipulate that their client did not pay any pusition under this doctrine, whichmight possession must establish that the,e was sub- the taxes on the disputed property. For 25 simply be called a form of estoppel. In short, jective uncertainty and that the parties there- instance, souse attorneys have advanced a 22 the agr’eecl-boumirlary rloctrine provided— fore made an agreement to fix the boundary “visual assessment” theory, under which until quite recently—a formidable argument at a particular place. However, in cases in the adverse claimant argues that the fence by which the neighbor in possession could which the legal records are inadeciuate to makesit appearthat the rlisputed property is obtain a favorable settlement, if nut art nut,’ight settle a boundary dispute, the coLirts can still part of the adverse claimant’s parcel. The victory in court, imply an agreement to fix a boundary at a (Cont/nued 0,1 ,oage 50)

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/nued from page 33) may seek to be excused from the require- that the fence did not create an exclusiveuse ment by presenting evidence on the as yet of the disputed property by the adverse adverse claimant wnuld then ask thecourt to untested theory that it is impossible to have claimant. conclude that the tax payment requirement paid the taxes on the disputed property. l’Iowevem’, a nonexclusive easement may has been satisfied—that is, even though the Silacci and Mehdizadeh both assume that not be a desirable remedy; most neighbors, adverse claimant did not pay the tax bill issued such tax payment is possible. However, as a especially litigious ones, do not want to sham-c for the disputed property, the claimantactu- practical matter it may not be. The Los their property, Silacci arguably foreclosed ally did pay taxes on the disputed property Angeles County Assessor, like all assessors, mtonexclusive yard easementsby quoting the because the claimant’s own tax bill included imposes taxes nitTy on property interests dis- trial court’s statement that “the privately the value of the disputed property, which closed in public records, andnot on portions enclosed area of a home does not lend itself 42 everyonebelieved was part of his or her lot. of lots that ni-c thesubject of adverse claints.°” to sham-ed use,” Thus, pursuing a nonexclu- The visual assessment theory requires In 1992, the legislatum’e amended Revenue sive easement may be primarily useful as a evidence of theactual method of assessment. and Taxation Code Section 610 to provide: means of encouraging the record owner to The adverse claimant would need to pr’ove Any person may have his or her name settle, since neither neighborwill want the that neither the landowners themselves nor ndded to the assessment roll for a par- court to split the backyard. the assessor relied on asnrvey; instead, they ticularparcel of property if he or she In contrast to prescriptive easements and relied on avisual assessment ofthe real prop- provides the assessor with (‘3) adec- adverse possession, which depend on the erty and its visual boundaries, i.e. on fences, laration under penalty nf perjury that paymentof taxes, the agm’eed boundary doc- Some claimants may be able to bolster the he or she is currently in possession trine depends on uncertainty over the true argument that the assessor did not rely on of the property and intends to be boundary. As a result, the first issue in liti- record title by invoking the constitutional assessed in order to perfect a claim gating an agreed boundary claint is whether requirement (since the passage ofProposition by adverse possession, legal records provide a reasonable basis for 13) that the assessment of real property be This statute only allows a person to pay fixing the true boundary, Ifthey do not, then based on acquisition cost, This cost, in turn, taxes on anotherperson’s “particular parcel”; the neighbor in possession will have the may have beenbased nil a visual assessment it does not purport to allow the creation of a advantage under the doctrine, since an agree’ of property boundaries. If the encroaching new parcelby such a declaration, Thus, while ,nent may still be implied when there is direct landowner can establish that the acquisition it may be possible thran adverse claimantto evidence of uncertainty. price—and thereby the assessment—were pay taxes on his or her neighbor’s entire At least one of the neighbors must obtain based on the value of the disputed property property, it appears to be impossible to pay a survey to confirm thelocation of the bound- and improvements, then therequirement of taxes on the portion of the assessor’s parcel ary. Finding the true boundary generally the payment of taxes has arguably been sat- number containing theeasement, In view of requires available monuments, These mon- 24 isfied, these barriers, adverse claimants may argue uments ntay be described in recorded deeds This acquisition-cost approach to provid- thatthey can obtain title without paying taxes or in tract maps referred to in the deeds, ing evidenceofthe payment of taxes would be because to pay taxes would be impossible, and Next, one must deterntine whether themon- especiallyfiu’cefulin scenarios wherethe dis- as the maxim of jum’isprudence states, “The uments can be located or are lost. 4 putedproperty significantly affects the value law never requires impossibilities.” ” Contemporary monuments, such as brass 13 of the adverse claimant’s property, either This “impossibility” approachcan be made markers in sidewalks, are more likely to be because the disputed portion is intrinsically to scent less novel by invoking the well- available than anciemtt monuments, such as valuable or because its loss would diminish accepted proposition that, for adverse pos- trees, If the monuments are lost (or there the value of the remainder, This might be session and pi-escriptive easements, payment have been material topographic changes), the case, forexample, when the loss ofa side of taxes is not required when the property is locating the true boundary line will require yard would causestructuresto he in violation tax exempt. That exception is am’guahly an considerable research, In such cases, the of setback restrictions, example of theimpossibility exception, Ifthe legal records alone may not provide a “rea- At the same time, the claimant may courts follow Mehdizadeh’s position that the sonable” basis for fixing the boundary, and directly challenge the requirement that taxes requirements for adverse possession and pre- that satisfies the requirement of objective must have been paid, In Gitardi v, Hal/am scriptive easentent are identical, then this uncertainty.” the supreme court declined to address the argument (that payment of taxes should be Using the existing recorded documents applicability ofthe tax payment requirement excused because one cannot pay taxes on a and ntonuments, asurvey can be performned 25 to exclusive pm’escriptive easements. It is part of a parcel) will enable the adverse by a registered civil engineeror licensed land 45 something of a mystery—perhaps a nine- claimant to pmevail under both theories. surveyor. Both mteighbors should! cooper~ teenth century ploy by wealthy railroads to Ratherthan attempting to satisfy, attack, ate, It is not, however, generally necessary derail squatters’ claims—why it should mat- or excuse the tax paymentrequirement, the that the surveyor be allowed access to a non- 4 ter between pm-ivnte landowners who paid the adverse claimantmay instead consider seek- consenting neighbor’s land, ” It maybe tempt~ 3 local county, ” California is in the minority of ing a nonexclusive easement, Nonexclusive ing, but it is illegal, to remove the stakes 47 states to make payment of taxes a prerequi- uses are beyond the holding of SUacci and while a survey is being performed. 27 site for adverse possession, But it remains would not require the paymnent of taxes, (Com’respondingly, the neighborwith ,ecord doubtful that, after 100 years, the adverse Whether the easement is cham’acterized as title shoulrl not resort to tearing down the possession requirements of Code of Civil exclusive or nnnexclusive depends on the encroaching fence; possession can only be 2 49 Procedure Sectinn 325 will he amended, ’ use of the land during the prescriptive restored by the cnurts. ) As an alternativeto satisfying the tax pay- period.” For example, if the fence has a gate The survey can establish uncertainty ment requirement under the visual-assess- without a lock, or with a lock to which both when the description of theboundary in legal ment or acquisition-cost theories, or attacking neighbors have keys, or which has fallen records does not coincide with the mnnu-

50 LOS ANGELES LAWYER! JANuARY 1997 ments, because the monuments contm’oI. This inconsistency is more cnn]nton in older tracts, Public ,~ecordsmay yield some evidence of this inconsistency, because surveyors record a “record of survey” when there is arrmaterial discrepancy between recorded information 4 amtd field data, ’” Incnnsisteucies among surveys can also establish uncertainty. The adverse claimant should commission multiple surveys if theme are doubts as to a first survey’s precision. The adverse claimant should also seek prior surveys, which may have been performed to obtain a title policy or nsa condition for con- struction of improvements (such as to estab- lish that therewas no encroachment into side YOUR WAY OUR WAY yard setbacks). For instamlce, in Kunza v, 2 Gasket!, ’” the proponent of record title com- I11r~m7flhM Scan200 Software allow, you to View. Print, and Edit your F’ile, tight on missioned three surveys with inconsistent your Laptop or Desktop in any Windowi”” 3,1 /95 environment. Take the CD Home or to Court, The Software is Burned right onto each CD, Full Document Profiling. Work~on results, and the court confirmed thefence as Networks ~ TM takes your boxes. Scans. OCR.. and Indexes—providing en the agm’eed boundary. Electronic File Cabinet right on your computer. Stores 30.000 page. or more on one CD Even if the true boundary hue can rea- F30iV1 flj Ii Soolean Search caRa~i I ities sonably be located from legal records, the - adverse claimant still has the opportunity to present direct evidence that there was Easy and fun to use! Call or e-mail for a free demo subjective uncertainty among the cotermi- nous owners when the fence was built, and filetron TM that they intended thefence to resolve that l-800’Ciletron uncertainty. This burden may not be as fax 213-720-1709 1536 Gage Road Flontebello, CA 90640 WLBe-mailSiteSalesWWW.filetron.com~ rimetron,com onerous as it first appears. In Bryant, the California Supreme Courtreaffirmed its hold- 2 ing in Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church ’ that the burden was met by evidence that the neighbor performed a survey dim’ectly before building an encroaching fence, sidewalk, and structure, Conducting a survey“presum- PCMI 7~QEzfte’te ea&ee® ably” established uncertainty, and building the fence showcd un agreement to resolve it. The legislature has also eased the bur- EXPERT • Expert Witness in the fields of Construction, den by making admissible hearsay evidence Psychology, Medicine & Economics front unavailable witnesses regarding bound- LITIGATION 2 • Construction Defect Failure Analysis ary lines,’ CoNS t LI ING, As a pm’actical matter, in this type of dis- • Contract Issue Analysis Liability Allocation pute, which is often without significant eco- - MULTIMEDIA, nomic benefit to either mieighhor, other cnn- • Building Safety Evaluation siderations can create an atmosphere for D [SIR U CT IVE • Cost Estimates voluntary resolution, The cost of litigatinn, except to the extent that it is defrayed by TESTING & 4 CPM Scheduling & Delay Claims insurance (see “Bearing the Cost of Litiga- CONSTRUCTION 4 Remedial Design/Build Construction tion,” page 32); the anxiety caused by suing 4 Personal Injury neighbors; and the inability to sell property DEFECT while litigation is pending (particularly ifails 4 Mediation Presentation pendens has been recorded) may all lead to RESTORATION settlement, • Evidence Preservation Storage If the parties agree to abide by the true SERVICES 4 Trial Graphics, Animation & boundary, then the adverse claimant might Computer Presentations surrender possession in exchange for the record ownerbearing the cost of relocating the fenceand perhaps making other conces- sions relating to the design of the fence. TOLL FREE: (800) 576-7264 Alternatively, the parties may agree that the adverse claimant holds only a revocable Riverside • Los Angeles + Sacramento • San Leandro • Las Vegas, NV license for a limited use, thereby allowing

LOS ANGEtES LAWYER! JANOARY 1997 51 148 c i. Rptr. 495, 498 (1978) (fixing agreed boumtcla~ the adverse claim;uat to continue in possession 2 at femace Iimte: inie boun damy unc’ertatmi elite to lost nlon- ig & Consulting Corporation witllout a risk to the ecord owmser that such tunerIs) g — Expert Testimony — Consulting possession will m-ipen into title, Metle v, Weaver, 36 Cat. 2d 456. 459. 224 P. 2d 691. Ifthe parties select a boundu-yother than 692-93 (1950). than 25 yenrs of experience. the true boundary, they will face some pro- Ernie v, Trinity Lutlienui Church. St Cal 2d 702. 708, id more than 100 insurance companies. cedural thickets, Although lot-line adju st- 336 P. 2d 525, 529 (1959). 2.i Frenrh v. Brinlcnaamt, 60 Cat. 2d 547. 552-53, 35 Cal. nlents are excktcled from the requirements of Rptt. 289, 292-93 (1963). ~nalysis 4’ Construction the Stmbdivisioll Map Act,-°the Los Angeles Vclla v, Ratto, 17 Cal. App. 3d 737, 740.95 Cal. Rptr. ml Science / Metallurgy real estate workouts; planning facile re-establishment of any paint or line of the sur- eaaenment issue maul rttised by partmes) ransnctions under Sections 1031, 1033, vey.” Coon Civ, Pmsoc, §325. ° Bryamit. 9 Cal. 4tta at 49-50, 36 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 87. for debt workouts Cona Civ, Ptnn. §887.010. ‘is Bus, & Pgom-’. Coon §8761. Raah v, Casper. 51 Cal. App. 3d 866,876-77, 124 Cal. Bat ace Bus, & Psoti. Coon §8774 (generally permits tog the administrative trust; designatillg Rptr. 590, 596 (1975) (exclusive possessiomi ul neigh- a licensed surveyor tn enter amty latmd, wiLhout notice. neeoumlts; generation skippimlg trallsfer bor’s laud for yarn involves claim for adverse taosses- to tmem-Inrm a survey). x traps in boilerplate provisions; and alma, no) prescriptive easemnent) PENAL Coon §605. Payment of taxes is required only lit the rare ease in 0 Allen v, MeMillion, 82 Cal. App. 3d 211, 216-20, 147 which Lime easement has been separately assessed. Ca]. Rptr. 77, 81-84 (1978) (habilirv for trespass). pursue in greater depth some of the (;itardi, 30 Cal. 3d at 321-22. 178 Cal. Rptr. at 626. a Bits. & Pmmot. Coon §8762. ° 5 H. Mtt.E.tia ASC M. STaRS, Ccttsi’:NT L sw 0 F Cot 4 Ktinza v, Gaskell, 91 Cal. App. 3d 201, 205. 154 Cal. ~ram, as well as charitable remainder m’etxio PeAt. EsTATe §15:29 at 473 (2d cit 1989). Rptr. 101, 103 (1979). liens and their I’amihies; planning and IA §t5:3 1 n,10, at 478. Ernie, 51 Cal. 2e1 702, 336 P. 2d 525 (1959). he Internet in a tax practice; employee Silaeci, 45 Cal. App. 4th at 564. Eve. Coon §1323. 1 Otay Waler Dial. v. Beckwith, 1 Cat. App. 4th to~IL. nd planning to av nit a “hobby loss’’ 25 Gev’T’ Cetoa §66112 tel). 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 223 (1991) (granr of exclusive ease- The address and telephone number of flue Lns naen t fur a reaemveir not eotaaparabte to fee title because Angeles Department of Regional Plannimig is 320West ul use testrietiemt) Temple Street, Roomn 1360, Lets Angeles.. California C Silacci, 45 CaL App. 4th at 561. his activity has been approved for 90012, 213!974-61 it. Mehctizacteh, 46 Cat. App. 4th at t304-05. redit by the State Bar of California in Befom-e fihimig the action, the clainmant stleulel bit- iT uI at 1300. Id. at. 1308. smder ehtai Ii ng a Iitigariemi gm tat’antee front a title clan Id. (eititag Pasadena v. Catifum’tua-M ieliigan Lantrl & pany, whereby the Iitle insurer wilt guaramatee that if a judgment is obtained agaimist the parties it believes are Water Co., 17 Cal, 2d 576, 578-79. tIlt t’. 2d 983. 985 [EON: (213) 740-2582 necessary, it wilt issue a policy of title insmuamace. (11*11)). Rev, A. TAL. Cone §611). !i!leaqcin v. Shitoh Omchat’ds. 84 Cal. App, 3d 192, t97,