What are adverse possession claims?

Useful Rulings on Adverse Possession Claims

Recent Rulings on Adverse Possession Claims

MARCEL JORDAN VS WILLIAM CARR, ET AL.

The FAC, however, does not state sufficient specific facts constituting the alleged adverse possession and only sets forth the elements for adverse possession in a conclusory manner.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DEBRA ANN REID VS GERALD BARNES

Case Background In this action, Plaintiff Debra Ann Reid proceeds against Defendant Gerald Barnes in the Complaint, and The Estate of Gerald Barnes in the First Amended Complaint, for: (1) Quiet Title and Adverse Possession and (2) Declaratory Relief.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

WILLIAM CAMPANA VS CONSUELO SALDANA ET AL

As noted, it appears there is a breach of contract theory asserted (1ACC, ¶ 10), and there is also a reference to adverse possession (¶ 13). To enable Cross-Defendant to reasonably respond, Cross-Complainants must separately plead such theories and plead the elements of each such cause of action. If the statute of frauds defense appears on the face of an amended complaint, Cross-Defendant may raise the issue as appropriate. The demurrer on the ground of uncertainty is persuasive.

  • Hearing

ESPERANZA D BAGWELL VS JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ET AL.

Foreclosure* *Demurrer sustained without leave to amend as to moving defendant Chase 08/16/19 SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Plaintiff Esperanza Bagwell alleges that she is the owner of property on Primrose Avenue in Monrovia based on plaintiff’s actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile and adverse possession of the subject property for five years preceding the commencement of this action, and has paid all taxes assessed against the property for the same five years.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

JACOB DEWITT VS DAVID JOSEPH BURTON, ET AL

“It is well settled that an easement, regardless of whether it was created by grant or use, may be extinguished by the owner of the servient tenement upon which the easement is a burden, by adverse possession thereof by the servient tenement owner for the required statutory period. Perhaps more accurately stated an easement may be extinguished by the user of the servient tenement in a manner adverse to the exercise of the easement, for the period required to give title to land by adverse possession.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

M&H CAPITAL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS YI MEI INVESTMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

., alleging: (1) adverse possession; and (2) prescriptive easement. Cross-Defendant M&H Capital, Inc. (M&H) now demurs to Yi Mei Investment’s second cause of action. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.¿ (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn).) ¿When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.¿ (Taylor v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

WILLIAM CAMPANA VS CONSUELO SALDANA ET AL

As noted, it appears there is a breach of contract theory asserted (1ACC, ¶ 10), and there is also a reference to adverse possession (¶ 13). To enable Cross-Defendant to reasonably respond, Cross-Complainants must separately plead such theories and plead the elements of each such cause of action. If the statute of frauds defense appears on the face of an amended complaint, Cross-Defendant may raise the issue as appropriate. The demurrer on the ground of uncertainty is persuasive.

  • Hearing

SAADEDDINE A EL-GHALI VS MATTHEW BARCH, ET AL.

Despite Defendants claim that their proposed amended answer does not assert requests for affirmative relief, the proposed amended answer includes as 3rd “affirmative defense” “Prescriptive Easement, Adverse Possession or Abandonment.” It is not clear how Defendants can argue that adverse possession is not a request for affirmative relief when their now dismissed cross-complaint sought essentially the same relief.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DARLENE AGARWALA, ET AL. VS JEAN-PAUL CYRIL ISSOCK, 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KING V. HASSELL

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.” (Gilardi v. Hallam (1981) 30 Cal.3d 317, 321.) “[T]he requirements of adverse possession are rigid, precise and must be construed in favor of the person sought to be dispossessed.” (Finley v. Yuba County Water Dist. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 691, 700.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JUVENAL RANGEL, SR. VS MARIA SANCHEZ

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.) The statute of limitations period for a fraud claim is 3 years. (CCP § 338.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SANGJIN MILLER OH VS MICHAEL DI PEPPINO, 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SANDOVAL VS CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VICHIT TILAKAMONKUL VS VICHAI TILAKAMONKUL 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SANDOVAL VS CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WANG VS. WONG

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.

  • Hearing

JOY SLAGEL VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

Prashant/Graphic filed a cross-complaint in BC696133 seeking to quiet title to the corporate headquarters of Graphic (the “GRI Property”) based on adverse possession. Govind then filed a cross-complaint, seeking to quiet title to the same property. BC704685 Govind’s and Sonal’s Complaint in BC704685 seeks partition by sale of a particular piece of real property (the “Durham Property”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CALVARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS CO.TE.EN

The Howards alleged they acquired title to certain property by adverse possession by 1959, which property the Silvas conveyed to the Schaniel in 1973. The Howards brought an action for quiet title seeking to resolve their claim for adverse possession and sought damages for slander of title against the real estate broker Arbaugh who brokered the 1973 transaction. The court held that slander of title could not be applied to a title acquired by adverse possession but as yet not established by decree.

  • Hearing

GOVIND VAGHASHIA VS PRASHANT VAGHASHIA ET AL

Prashant/Graphic filed a cross-complaint in BC696133 seeking to quiet title to the corporate headquarters of Graphic (the “GRI Property”) based on adverse possession. Govind then filed a cross-complaint, seeking to quiet title to the same property. BC704685 Govind’s and Sonal’s Complaint in BC704685 seeks partition by sale of a particular piece of real property (the “Durham Property”).

  • Hearing

BRUCE E. WICK VS, ALL PERSONS CLAIMING ANY INTEREST IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, ET AL

In that case, the court stated "[t]he rule is that if an obstruction to a private easement is continuous, exclusive, and under claim of right, so that it will eventually destroy the easement by adverse possession thereof, an injunction will be granted against such obstruction, although substantial damage has not yet been caused by the obstruction. In such a case the damage will be substantial when the adverse occupation has extinguished the right of way.

  • Hearing

ANDRE NEUMANN V. GISELA . NEUMANN, ET AL.

“Generally, the 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.” Id. at 476-477 [footnotes omitted]. Andre asserts that the deed was executed in 2008 and, therefore the longest of these statutes had run before Gisela filed her cross-complaint.

  • Hearing

GOITOM TEKLETSION VS ARAM BEDOYAN

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MARCONI V. CRIBBS

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.

  • Hearing

ENRIQUE QUINTANA VS ANA L QUINTANA

“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 all causes of action in the SAC on the grounds that they are uncertain and fail to state facts to constitute causes of action because they are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.