What are adverse possession claims?

Useful Rulings on Adverse Possession Claims

Recent Rulings on Adverse Possession Claims

MCMULLIN VS. BARRY A ROSS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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 the entire FAC on the grounds that each cause of action is time-barred. (Demurrer, p. 6:15.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Patrick M

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

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.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

PAUL KRZEMUSKI VS GEORGE ZAKHARIA ET AL

possession.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

VAN BOI YANG VS IVY YANG HO

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

RALPH POLLERANA VS WESTERN PROGRESSIVE, LLC, 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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

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.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY VS MIKE CHILES ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.