Who's yard is it anyway?

[JCKS]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? CA

I have recently found out that the fence between my neighbors yard and mine, (which is in direct line with his garage to the back of his property) is 30 feet into his property according to the county map (Riverside, CA). I was told by the Real Estate agent, when I purchased the house, that it was part of my property because of where the fence is and the water comes form my house. For 9 years my sprinklers have been watering it, I have been taking care of it, and keeping the weeds down and trimming the tree. My neighbor move into the house 6 years ago and now wants to put up a fence on the property line, which will take about 1200 sq feet of the yard I have been taking care of and using for so long. Do I have any claim to it, or any part of it?

 

[PghREA]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? CA

I have recently found out that the fence between my neighbors yard and mine, (which is in direct line with his garage to the back of his property) is 30 feet into his property according to the county map (Riverside, CA). I was told by the Real Estate agent, when I purchased the house, that it was part of my property because of where the fence is and the water comes form my house. For 9 years my sprinklers have been watering it, I have been taking care of it, and keeping the weeds down and trimming the tree. My neighbor move into the house 6 years ago and now wants to put up a fence on the property line, which will take about 1200 sq feet of the yard I have been taking care of and using for so long. Do I have any claim to it, or any part of it?

And the survey says - it's not your yard. So it is not YOUR yard.

 

[JCKS]

What background do you have, that you can make such a blatant statement?
What laws and codes do you base your statement on?
Please let me know so I can see it for myself.
Are YOU a Real Estate lawyer?
Most professionals at least give some kind of explanation of how they came to their conclusion.

 

[nextwife]

In most states, you must also have been paying the property taxes in order to try to claim the land. As HE has been paying the property taxes, consider yourself fortunate you got to use that extra land up until now

"In California, adverse possession requires five years of continued use which is "open and notorious" and "adverse" to the owner's interest. The maintenance and upkeep and improvement of the property is required and for the five years of use the property taxes must be paid for the property being adversely possessed."

It is unwise to ever presume that a property line is at a particular spot simply because someone else, who may very well have chosen to guess where the property line was and who did NOT have benefit of survey, happened to place a particular improvment there. It is the survey, not the erronerously erected fence that determines the legal lot line.

 

[PghREA]

Just because you have been watering and mowing someone elses property for 9 years, does not make it YOUR property. And the fact that a Realtor told you it was your property still does not make it your property. You did not buy the part you are mowing and watering and you are not paying taxes on it. It belongs to someone else. Take your deed, which contains a legal description of your property and a recent survey to a local Real Estate attorney and let him explain it all to you.

 

[FarmerJ]

JC if you take the time to review the many post about this subject you would see that they often say the same things like how the clock starts all over when a property changes hands , County maps can be wrong some times and they are not a current boundry survey. so of the 9 yrs you have been there the ticker re started when the new owner came in. NOW the one thing you can do is get a survey of your property and see exactly where the property line is. and take the time to review your states statutes for adverse possession. Once you have done those things if you feel the need to. Go ahead and arrange for a consultation with a real estate atty. Just in case your wondering NO im not a pro so this is why I told you after you do some research to FIND A ATTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BTW realtors can tell you the moon is sqaure when you know it might not be and unless there was a current boundry survey at the time you bought showing you where the lot line is you shouldnt accept what a realtor tells you about property lines verbatim. unless good evidence like survey stakes wich of course if recent then the written info about it would have been available to you.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

FEATURE ARTICLE

August 2004
# To read this entire item of approximately 2600 words online now in PDF format: Click here to read this item.
# To subscribe to this publication and immediately access all its archives including this item, select the relevant publication under 'Catalogue' in the left-hand column
# PLEASE NOTE: to read PDFs on www.argento.com you must be using Version 5 of Acrobat Reader or Adobe Reader. If you have an earlier version you can download the latest free of charge by clicking here
Encroachers Beware: The Sun Is Setting on the Wild West Doctrine of Adverse Possession

The venerable common law doctrines of adverse possession and prescriptive easements find new expressions and iterations in the modern California landscape dominated by common interest developments and suburban sprawl. In stark contrast to the image of squatters putting shacks and vegetable gardens on isolated plots in the hinterlands, modern cases involving these doctrines invariably involve adjoining homeowners and backyard litigation. Courts called upon to apply these centuries-old legal principles to the modern realm of the suburb and subdivision have had to cover some new ground, so to speak,and the results have been rather intriguing. Based on the knotty analytical threads of case law, statute, and legal principle, courts are resorting more and more to reverse and result-oriented analyses to reach the “right” outcome.

Result-Oriented Judicial Reasoning in Adverse Possession

Two recent Court of Appeal decisions illustrate the trend toward result-oriented judicial reasoning, and the doctrinal limits of adverse possession and prescriptive easements, with interesting results. Harrison v. Welch, 116 Cal.App.4th 1084 (2004) (Harrison) and Kapner v. Meadowlark Ranch Ass’n, 116 Cal.App.4th 1182 (2004) (Kapner) present the classic sets of facts with which courts are faced when deciding claims for adverse possession and exclusive use prescriptive easements improvements put in by a landowner that encroach on an adjoining parcel. The cases also have similar results in which the encroachers lose out.