Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/adverse-possession-claims-131
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 23:05:24
Document Index: 225516234

Matched Legal Cases: ['§322', '§437', '§322', '§ 430', '§438', '§318', '§343']

What are adverse possession claims?
“Adverse possession may be based on either color of title or a claim of right.” (Safwenberg v. Marquez (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 301, 309.) “Adverse possession under color of title is founded on a written instrument, judgment or decree, purporting to convey the land, but for some reason defective.” Id. “Adverse possession under a claim of right is not founded on a written instrument, judgment or decree. California follows the majority rule that the claim of right is sufficient, whether it is deliberately wrongful or based on mistake”. (Id. at 309-310 citing Woodward v. Faris, 109 Cal. 12, 17; Park v. Powers, 2 Cal. 2d 590, 596; Sorenson v. Costa, 32 Cal. 2d 453, 460; Lobro v. Watson, 42 Cal. App. 3d 180.)
In order to allege and prove a claim of adverse possession (claim of right), Plaintiff must establish:
possession is by actual occupation under such circumstances as to constitute reasonable notice to the owner;
possession is be hostile to the owner's title;
the holder claims the property [as] her/his own, either under color of title, or claim of right;
possessionn was be continuous and uninterrupted for five years; and
the possessor has paid all of the taxes levied and assessed upon the property during the period.
(Estate of Williams (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 141, 146.)
“Color of Title” Adverse Possession Claim
A “Color of Title” adverse possession is when a conveyance reasonably relied upon by the purchaser to maintain exclusive and uninterrupted possession for at least 5 years is held to create title rights, even if that conveyance later proves to be defective. C.C.P. §322. Unlike a “claim of right” adverse possession claim, which can be based on a deliberately wrongful claim of right, one based upon “color of title” must be based upon some sort of written conveyance attempt, which is defective for some reason. (Safwenberg v. Marquez (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 301, 309.)
A “color of title” adverse possession claim also requires good faith reliance upon it by the party claiming adverse possession. Estate of Williams (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 141, 147.
The Doctrine of Unclean Hands as Defense
Unclean hands is an equitable doctrine and application of the doctrine is a question of fact. (CrossTalk Productions, Inc. v. Jacobson (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 631, 640.) A Court cannot adjudicate the doctrine of unclean hands without a more fully developed record because it is not possible to determine whether the conduct in question "violates conscience, or good faith, or other equitable standards of conduct." (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Super. Ct. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 979.)
“The defense of unclean hands arises from the maxim, ‘He who comes into Equity must come with clean hands.’” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Super. Ct. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 978 citing Blain v. Doctor's Co. (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 1048, 1059.) "The doctrine demands that a plaintiff act fairly in the matter for which he seeks a remedy. He must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he will be denied relief, regardless of the merits of his claim.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, supra, at 978 citing Precision Co. v. Automotive Co. (1945) 324 U.S. 806, 814-815; Hall v. Wright (1957) 240 F.2d 787, 794-795.) “The defense is available in legal as well as equitable actions.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, supra, at 978 citing Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal. App. 2d 675, 728; Burton v. Sosinsky (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 562, 574.)“Whether the doctrine of unclean hands applies is a question of fact.” (Kendall-Jackson Winery, supra, at 978 citing CrossTalk Productions, Inc. v. Jacobson (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 631, 639.)
Useful Rulings on Adverse Possession Claims
Genoveva Duran vs. Oralia Cardenas
Defendant Oralia Cardenas' (Cardenas) motion for summary judgment is denied. Plaintiff Genoveva Duran (Duran) has filed a complaint seeking to quiet title based on the doctrine of adverse possession. Cardenas moves for summary judgment on that claim. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court is required to: (a) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (b) determine whether the mov...
..he Court must liberally construe the opposing party's evidence and strictly scrutinize the moving party's evidence, and resolve any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in favor of the opposing party. McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College District (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, 96 – 97. Similarly, "any doubts as to the propriety of granting a summary judgment motion should be resolved in favor of the...
SINGH v. SHARMA
Motion by Defendants/Cross-Complainants NARENDRA SHARMA and JAYSHREE SHARMA for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication TENTATIVE RULING Although this motion is labeled as one for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the notice of motion and separate statement of undisputed facts do not set forth for what issues or claims summary adjudication is being sought, so it is ef...
..deny this motion. C.C.P. §437c(c). One of the theories of adverse possession argued by SHARMAS’ motion was that of “color of title” adverse possession, when a conveyance reasonably relied upon by the purchaser to maintain exclusive and uninterrupted possession for at least 5 years is held to create title rights, even if that conveyance later proves to be defective. C.C.P. §322. Unlike a “claim of...
ROSEMARY THOMPSON VS O C INTERIOR SERVICES LLC ET AL
ROSEMARY THOMPSON. Plaintiff, v. O.C. INTERIOR SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC607078 Hearing Date: October 14, 2016 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BACKGROUND This is an adverse possession action arising out of real property located in Los Angeles (“Property”). Plaintiff Rosemary Thompson (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she obtained the Property by...
..son Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.) The court must treat as true all of the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Id. at 732–33.) The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Id. at 733.) “The elements necessary to establish title by adverse poss...
JESUS CISNEROS VS. MARY HERNANDEZ, ET AL.
# 7. Jesus Cisneros v. Mary Hernandez, et al. Case No.: TC029021 Matter on calendar for: CMC; hearing on demurrer to FAC Tentative ruling: I. Background On May 14, 2018, Plaintiff Jesus Cisneros filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants Mary Hernandez, as personal representative of the Estate of Jessie Saldana and the Estate of Jessie Saldana for: (1) Adverse Possession (2) Quiet T...
.. The Court considered the moving and opposition papers. II. Standard A. Demurrer Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.) In ruling on a demurrer, the Court shall accept all material allegations in the Complaint as true...
HOOSHMAND VS MAHONEY
HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY DAVID MAHONEY, ELOISA MAHONEY * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendants David and Eloisa Mahoney’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendants’ motion to summary adjudication is granted as to causes of action 1 through 4 and punitive damages and denied as to causes of action 5 and 6. Discovery Matters Plaintiff Mark Hooshmand has opposed this motio...
..some new photographs. Procedural Matters Plaintiff asks that this motion be denied because Defendants have not specifically stated the reason for each summary adjudication in their separate statement and notice of motion in violation of California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1350(b). The Court finds that Defendants have stated its reasons with sufficiently specificity and to the extent they have not...
RUDY A. DIAZ VS. GOAL LINE PROPERTIES, LLC
DIAZ v. GOAL LINE PROPERTIES, LLC CASE NO.: VC065388 HEARING: 04/18/18 TENTATIVE ORDER Defendants GOAL LINE PROPERTIES, LLC; RICHARD BARON; and STEPHEN DYNER’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend in part, and DENIED in part. CCP §438(b). Moving Party to give notice. Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence of the documents, but...
..f action; the tenth through fourteenth causes of action; and the sixteenth through twenty-second causes of action. First, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action – Quiet Title, Adverse Possession, and Declaratory Relief Plaintiffs seek to quiet title to the Property in their favor as of October 16, 2015—where “Rudy PERSONALLY REDEEMED the Property by paying $21,000.00 toward the property taxes—that...
Recent Rulings on Adverse Possession Claims
Civil - Unlimited (22)
Civil Case Management Conference (6)
Dan Thomas Oki (15)
Daniel S. Murphy (6)
Dylan Sullivan (6)
Ed Weil (2)
James L. Crandall (9)
John S. Meyer (6)
Kevin Denoce (6)
Robert A. Dukes (11)
Thomas Anderle (14)
William D. Stewart (5)
Contra Costa County, CA (9)
El Dorado County, CA (14)
Fresno County, CA (16)
Los Angeles County, CA (142)
Riverside County, CA (6)
San Diego County, CA (46)
Ventura County, CA (26)
Ross committed legal malpractice when he told plaintiffs that they could keep certain improvements they had built at the rear of their residential property if they sued their homeowner’s association for adverse possession and won. Second, if evidence of Mr. Ross’s actions and inactions at the trial of the underlying case and the opinion from the court of appeal is to be admitted then the entire case should be tried at one time.
LINDA RICH VS PACIFICA ENTERPRISES
That case involved defrauders who were obtaining title to certain dilapidated properties via adverse possession and by recording false "wild deeds." After obtaining such properties, the defrauders then (generally speaking) improved them and rented them out.
ROBERT A. WHITE, ET AL. VS AVTWO HOMES, LLC
Demurrer Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks declaratory relief and to quiet title based on a theory of adverse possession. “The elements necessary to establish title by adverse possession are tax payment and open and notorious use or possession that is continuous and uninterrupted, hostile to the true owner and under a claim of title, for five years.” (McLear-Gary v. Scott (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 145, 152.)
“Generally, the most likely limits for a quiet title action are the five-year limitations period for adverse possession, the four-year limitations period for the cancellation of an instrument, or the three-year limitations period for claims based on fraud and mistake.” (Id. at pp. 476-467.) Defendant demurs to the entire FAC on the grounds that each cause of action is time-barred. (Demurrer, p. 6:15.)
KEITH OLDHAM, ET AL VS JAY PRESS, ET AL
If the title is based upon adverse possession, the complaint shall allege the specific facts constituting the adverse possession. (c) The adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought. (d) The date as of which the determination is sought. If the determination is sought as of a date other than the date the complaint is filed, the complaint shall include a statement of the reasons why a determination as of that date is sought.
BRUCE E. WICK VS. ALL PERSONS CLAIMING ANY INTEREST IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, ET AL
If the title is based upon adverse possession, the complaint shall allege the speciﬁc facts constituting the adverse possession (c) The adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought, (e) A prayer for the determination of the title of the plaintiff against the adverse claims.
SANCHEZ V HARTFIELD
Defendants filed a verified answer on June 1, 2020, which included affirmative defense number 3 that asserts the defendants have a prescriptive easement or rights obtained by adverse possession establishing that they have the right to use and maintain the driveway, improvements, encroachments, and land located on plaintiffs property.
ATALLAH V. PATEL
For prescriptive easements, plaintiff must demonstrate the “usual elements” as Witkin says, which are largely the same for adverse possession and easement by prescription: use uninterrupted for 5 years which is 1) open and notorious; 2) continuous and uninterrupted; 3) hostile to the true owner; and 4) under a claim of right. Mehdizadeh v. Mincer (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1305; King v. Wu (2nd Dist.2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1211, at 1214; Tract Development Services, Inc. v.
4402 MAMMOTH INVESTORS, LLC VS SHAHRAM ELYASZADEH, ET AL.
However, Sorenson involved adverse possession, not unlawful detainer. Defendants’ Demurrer per the SOL set forth under CCP §318 is OVERRULED.
MICHAEL MANOOCHER SABER AND PARIVASH SABAR, TRUSTEES OF THE 2009 MICHAEL MANOOCHER VS J.R. AND A.R. SERVICES, INC., ET AL.
The Complaint alleges six causes of action for: (1) quiet title; (2) adverse possession; (3) declaratory relief; (4) easement by implication; (5) equitable easement; and (6) injunctive relief. On April 16, 2019, J.R. and A.R. Services, Inc.
STEVE BROUSSALIAN VS SUSAN ARZOUMANIAN-BROUSSALIAN, ET AL.
“[T]he most likely time limits for a quiet title action are the five-year limitations period for adverse possession, the four-year limitations period for the cancellation of an instrument, or the three-year limitations period for claims based on fraud and mistake.” (Salazar v. Thomas (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 467, 476-77; see CCP §343.) According to the FAC, the quitclaim deed was recorded on May 29, 2012. (FAC, ¶¶12-13, Ex. B.)
SHEILA HAWKINS VS VINCENT BRANTLEY
Dickens, Attorney in Pro Per STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff seeks to quiet title based upon adverse possession. Defendant is her brother, trustee of their mother’s revocable trust. Plaintiff moves for sanctions against Defendant Vincent Brantley and his attorney Harold W. Dickens, III. TENTATIVE RULING: The Court has read and considered all pleadings filed in connection to this matter.
ORTWEIN V. BANK OF AMERICA
On August 14, 2019 the plaintiffs filed a complaint to quiet title and for adverse possession against defendants asserting that they are the true owners of the real property.
PAUL KRZEMUSKI VS GEORGE ZAKHARIA ET AL
VAN BOI YANG VS IVY YANG HO
Propounding party Ho argues that plaintiff has made a claim for an easement by adverse possession, and maintenance and improvements of the property are relevant to such a claim. It also appears that the partition claim in the FAC seeks offsets, which may be for such monies spent. Although the easement claim has since been dropped, the information sought remains discoverable. The opposition does not justify any of the objections, arguing that such matters are irrelevant if the parties are tenants in common.
KUMAR V. KOHS
.) ¶ Generally, the most likely time limits for a quiet title action are the five-year limitations period for adverse possession, [FN 7] the four-year limitations period for the cancellation of an instrument, [FN 8] or the three-year limitations period for claims based on fraud and mistake. [FN 9] ¶ FN 7. Claims involving adverse possession are subject to the five- year limitations period in sections 318, 319, 320 and 321. ¶ FN 8.
Hellman by adverse possession for more than five years preceding the commencement of this action, together with plaintiff’s payment of all taxes assessed against her portion of the property for the same five years.
SANGJIN MILLER OH VS MICHAEL DI PEPPINO, ET AL.
“The requirement of seisin or possession is met when it is established that the plaintiff was possessed of legal title, and this seisin can be destroyed only by establishing the fact that a title by adverse possession was acquired by the defendant.” (Tobin v. Stevens (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 945, 949.)
ANTOINETTE LEWIS VS BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,, ET AL.
If the title is based upon adverse possession, the complaint shall allege the specific facts constituting the adverse possession; (c) The adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought; (d) The date as of which the determination is sought.
ROGELIO L. AGUILAR VS JUAN MANUEL AGUILAR, ET AL.
If the title is based upon adverse possession, the complaint shall allege the specific facts constituting the adverse possession; The adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought; The date as of which the determination is sought.
PHILIP FERREIRA VS. ROBERT WANDLING
Alternatively, they allege they have acquired rights to the Disputed Area and all existing improvements either by adverse possession, prescriptive easement, or equitable easement. (Ibid.) Defendants filed a cross-complaint to enforce their purported rights to the Disputed Area.
RALPH POLLERANA VS WESTERN PROGRESSIVE, LLC, ET AL.
NYGAARD V. LISSNER
“Proof of the elements required for adverse possession (or for the agreed-boundary doctrine) gives a successful claimant title to property. A successful claimant of a prescriptive easement, by contrast, gains not title but the right to make a specific use of someone else's property. (Mesnick v. Caton, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at p. 1261, 228 Cal.Rptr. 779.)” (Mehdizadeh v. Mincer (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1305.)
Since an exclusive prescriptive easement is tantamount to acquiring title through adverse possession, the only way to obtain exclusive use of land is by satisfying the adverse possession elements. (Id. at 1305-1308.) The Chileses do not meaningfully distinguish this case with their cited facts, as most (if not all) of the cited facts are irrelevant to the point of law discussed by Mehdizadeh. Nor do they require the application of any narrow public safety exception contemplated in that case.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14 next last »