The CA Civil Code of Procedure is 1159:
1159. Every person is guilty of a forcible entry who either:
1. By breaking open doors, windows, or other parts of a house, or by any kind of violence or circumstance of terror enters upon or into any real property; or,
2. Who, after entering peaceably upon real property, turns out by force, threats, or menacing conduct, the party in possession.
The "party in possession" means any person who hires real property and includes a boarder or lodger, except those persons whose occupancy is described in subdivision (b) of Section 1940 of the Civil Code.
Now, this doesn't sound to me like it would apply, but I wanted to take down a fence on my property against the neighbor's will and received a letter from their attorney citing Allen et al., v. McMillon et al and quoting from the opinion: "one in peaceful though wrongful possession of real property may sue in tort for non-statutory forcible entry and interference with that possession even in the absence of injury to his person or goods." This opinion goes on and on, citing other cases, and statements like "It is a general principle that one who is or believes he is injured or deprived of what he is lawfully entitled to must apply to the state for help. Self-help is in conflict with the very idea of the social order. It subjects the weaker to risk of the arbitrary will or mistaken belief of the stronger. Hence the law in general forbids it."
Our RE attorney agreed that we could get in lots of trouble taking the fence down ourselves.
I would like to believe these guys are wrong, but I haven't seen anything that would convince me that they are. And, there was also a case in the news in Palo Alto a couple of years ago where a builder cut off the neighbor's deck that was protruding onto his lot. The builder ended up in jail.
I would love it if you guys could tell me this is all wrong because I have another fence with the same problem.
--
