Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“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:
(Estate of Williams (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 141, 146.)
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.
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.)
Defendant contends that CCP § 326 applies because there was a landlord/tenant relationship and that the five year adverse possession element did not begin to run until five years after Plaintiffs’ last rent payment. Plaintiffs stopped paying rent in August 2014. Therefore, the timing for adverse possession did not begin to run until five years after that, which was August 2019. Five years after August 2019 would complete the timing element for adverse possession, or August 2024.
LOPEZ VS. THE TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSORS OF JOSEPH ROBERT POWELL II, BELIEVED TO BE DECEASED
30-2020-01155068
Jun 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
SINGH V. SHARMA
FCS047549
Nov 28, 2018
Solano County, CA
Defendants GG&C 1, LLC, and David Adams submit a demurrer to the eighth and eleventh causes of action in the second amended complaint for quiet title and adverse possession. Defendants challenge the lack of a specified basis for the quiet title claim---legal or equity. To the extent Plaintiff relies on the adverse possession claim, Defendants challenge the later alleged cause of action in that the quiet title claim in no way incorporates said adverse possession claim.
DUDA ADAMS VS GG&C 1 LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
21CHCV00189
Sep 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Adverse Possession Claims Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication, is GRANTED.
AMARJIT GILL, ET AL. VS. ELIAS ORTIZ, ET AL.
17CV-01969
Mar 15, 2019
Merced County, CA
Real Property
other
s Adverse Possession defense Plaintiffs' UMFs (1-5) are established as stated. Defendant Dansk's additional UMFs (6-8) are unopposed but immaterial. Grant Plaintiffs Harch and RPJ's Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Defendant Dansk Investment Group, Inc.'s Adverse Possession defense on the ground that adverse possession has no application to the causes of action in the First Amended Complaint because fee simple title is not at issue in this case. (Swartzbaugh v. Sampson (1936) 11 Cal.App.2d 451, 462.)
HARCH VS DANSK
56-2014-00447060-CU-MC-VTA
Oct 06, 2015
Ventura County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Based upon the documents judicially noticed, adverse possession in not an appropriate cause of action for this situation. The demurrers are sustained without leave to amend.
JOSEFINA GALINDO VS. DEED OF TRUST #20071755925
LC106596
Feb 27, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
While Plaintiff alleges the elements of adverse possession, Plaintiff does not allege any material factual allegations to support her claim. Plaintiff alleges that she has been in possession and has paid all taxes “during the 5-year period.” However, Plaintiff alleges that she has been in possession of the Property since 1992.
ROSEMARY THOMPSON VS O C INTERIOR SERVICES LLC ET AL
BC607078
Oct 14, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
Mere occupation, payment of taxes or mortgage, and other acts that might establish adverse possession by a person who is not a tenant in common are, absent an ouster, not sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact as to whether title has passed by adverse possession.
CAROL JONES VS TONY RODRIGUES, ET AL.
19CV-01806
Jan 18, 2023
Merced County, CA
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.
MARCEL JORDAN VS WILLIAM CARR, ET AL.
19STCV45863
Nov 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
Here it is clear to the court that plaintiffs seek to quiet title and for a declaration of their rights based on their claim of adverse possession. The court will overrule the demurrer to the entire complaint on the ground of uncertainty. Quiet Title: Vanyo claims that an action for quiet title does not raise a claim for adverse possession. But the Supreme Court has rejected this contention.
WILLIAMS V KLINGER
1306795
Jul 07, 2009
Santa Barbara County, CA
Upon a review of the FAC (which the court notes has made but minor, superficial changes), the court finds Plaintiff has again failed to specifically plead adverse possession. If adverse possession is specially pleaded, the elements constituting such adverse possession must be alleged. (See CCP section 7 61.020 subd. (b) [If the title is based upon adverse possession, the complaint shall allege the specific facts constituting the adverse possession.] (emphasis and underline added).
CARLOS MORENO VS ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE
22PSCV00563
Jan 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Failure to pay taxes when assessed in any one year of the five years of adverse possession defeats the claim for adverse possession. (Southern Land Co. v. McKenna (1929) 100 Cal.App.152, 157-158.) It is the plaintiff’s burden to show that taxes were paid on time. (See Gilardi v. Hallan (1981) 30 Cal.3d 317, 326.) Mr. Madyun’s statements at trial and the tax records attached to his motion confirm that he cannot carry this burden.
ABDUL MADYUN VS. COMMUNITY GENTRIFICATION CORP. ET. AL.
TC028154
Jul 13, 2017
Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
Otay's claim to quiet title through adverse possession does not arise from the 1998 purchase agreement or some other contract. Otay's adverse possession claim does not relate to any 'breach' of the 1998 purchase agreement. Accordingly, the prayer for attorney's fees should be stricken." [Reply, Motion to Strike, 6:21-7:1] THEREFORE, the motion for an award of attorney fees is DENIED.
OTAY LAND COMPANY LLC V TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSORS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY
37-2013-00043371-CU-OR-CTL
Dec 05, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
CAUSES OF ACTION: from Plaintiff’s Complaint, 1) Quiet Title and Adverse Possession 2) Declaratory Relief 3) Injunctive Relief SUMMARY OF FACTS: Initially, on January 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Verified Complaint against defendants Alan Luong Lam and Yanshan Chen Lam (collectively, "Defendants") alleging Quiet Title and Adverse Possession, Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief ("Complaint").
JAMES LEE PADGETT VS ALAN LUONG LAM, ET AL.
20GDCV00101
May 28, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
These allegations are sufficient to assert title by adverse possession. Cody’s allegations of abandonment are inconsequential. In considering the doctrine of adverse possession in this factual context, the Court considered whether a co-tenant could ever take hostile possession of a property as against another co-tenant in order to satisfy all the elements necessary for adverse possession. The answer is yes; adverse possession is possible between co-tenants. See, Hunter v. Schultz (1966) 240 C.A.2d 24.
JAMES K. PETERSON ET AL. VS LAWRENCE C. PETERSON, A NATURAL PERSON AND TRUSTEE OF THE LAWRENCE C. PETERSON TRUST DATES MAY 10, 2007 ET AL.
STK-CV-URP-2023-0009753
Apr 30, 2024
San Joaquin County, CA
There are no clear allegations that the Chase claims are subject to adverse possession. Defendants argue this is insufficient to support a claim of adverse possession, as it is settled that a mortgagor does not hold an adverse claim to title for purposes of adverse possession. Both sides rely on Harvey v.
ESPERANZA D BAGWELL VS JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ET AL.
19GDCV00005
Aug 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
Based on this evidence and precedent, counsel now believes his client has a claim for adverse possession. Trial is a month away. If the motion is granted, it would require continuing the trial to allow C-H to challenge the new allegations (via demurrer, motion for summary adjudication, etc.) and conduct discovery. In the four and a half years since this case was filed, counsel had opportunity to investigate the issue of property tax payment/adverse possession.
MELINA BIANCA CHIAVERINI, ET AL. VS NANA BUSIASHVILI, ET AL.
19SMCV00196
Aug 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The failure to pay the taxes assessed in any one year defeats a claim premised on adverse possession. Southern Land Co. v. McKenna (1929) 100 Cal. App. 152, 158. The judicially noticed and certified County records demonstrate Plaintiff cannot satisfy the adverse possession element requiring the payment of property taxes. This ruling is made without leave to amend the pleading unless Plaintiff appears at the hearing and is able to articulate the ability to state a cognizable claim.
SMALLEY VS SILVERGATE RSF
37-2023-00043437-CL-OR-CTL
Dec 15, 2023
San Diego County, CA
However, this is insufficient to allege a claim for adverse possession against a co-tenant in title. Where a claim of ownership is by adverse possession against a cotenant, mere possession alone cannot establish adverse possession because each tenant has a right to occupy the whole of the property, and hence a tenant in exclusive possession is not doing so adversely to the other. (Preciado v.
MARTINEZ VS ARANGURE
CVRI2202170
Nov 02, 2022
Riverside County, CA
However, this is insufficient to allege a claim for adverse possession against a co-tenant in title. Where a claim of ownership is by adverse possession against a cotenant, mere possession alone cannot establish adverse possession because each tenant has a right to occupy the whole of the property, and hence a tenant in exclusive possession is not doing so adversely to the other. (Preciado v. Wilde, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at 325.)
['CVRI2202170', 'CVRI2202170']
Nov 02, 2022
Riverside County, CA
Adverse Possession “In no case shall adverse possession be considered established under the provision of any section of this code, unless it shall be shown that the land has been occupied and claimed for the period of five years continuously, and the party or persons, their predecessors and grantors, have timely paid all state, county, or municipal taxes
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON VS. JOSE TRINIDAD
17CECG01907
Sep 27, 2022
Fresno County, CA
They allege they are owners of the Property by virtue of adverse possession. They claim they have exclusively possessed and used the Property (which are located below their unit) for more than 20 years. Their cross complaint alleges claims for adverse possession, prescriptive easement and declaratory relief. Defendant Casa Gateway has cross-claimed against Moe Defendants.
GEORGE C. KOPEK, ET AL. VS BAGRAM MARDIROSSIAN
19SMCV02073
Dec 14, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court of Appeal in Viera , recognized a difference between establishing an easement by adverse possession and by acquiring ownership by adverse possession of an easement by the owner of the servient property. To establish hostility for adverse possession there need not be open aggression or combat, neither need a notice to the owner be given other than the claimants occupancy.
BRUCE D. MANSDORF VS FRANCES ONTKEAN
22SMCV00989
Jul 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff also fails to submit adequate evidence to support his allegation that he acquired title via adverse possession. (Complaint, ¶16.)
CARLOS SANTOS V. RAMONA LOPEZ
14CECG00672
Oct 16, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
The facts alleged are the same facts alleged as the basis of the adverse possession claim. The quiet title claim is not an alternative ground for recovery because it is based on the success of the adverse possession claim. Defendant’s argument that the claim is barred based on the Creditor’s Claim under Probate Code section 9353(a)(1) is inapplicable. Defendant states that Plaintiff is barred from seeking recovery of alleged expenses paid on Decedent’s house.
JESUS CISNEROS VS. MARY HERNANDEZ, ET AL.
TC029021
Jul 17, 2018
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
The relevant five-year period for purposes of Plaintiff’s adverse possession claim is the five-year period preceding the filing of his Complaint. As Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 15, 2021, the operative five-year period for purposes of taking title by adverse possession is March 15, 2016 through March 15, 2021. Thus, all property taxes must have been timely made during that time to meet the property tax element for an adverse possession claim.
WOODY VS ESTATE OF BETTY WOODY
CVSW2102035
Nov 23, 2022
Riverside County, CA
.: BC607078 Hearing Date: April 5, 2017 [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 will, and has been in possession of the Property since January 1, 1992.
ROSEMARY THOMPSON VS O C INTERIOR SERVICES LLC ET AL
BC607078
Apr 05, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
Plaintiff concedes in this motion that he made tax payments only in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2014, 2015, and 2016, which would be insufficient to support adverse possession. (Motion, p. 12.) Consequently, Plaintiff has not met his initial burden to prove each element of his adverse possession claim. Plaintiffs failure to timely pay taxes on the Property for a five-year period is confirmed by records from the County of Los Angeles Treasurer and Tax Collector presented by Defendant. ( Candelas Decl. ¶ 2, Ex.
DAVID CARPENTER VS RONALD D MINER, ET AL.
22STCV10773
Apr 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
He alleges adverse possession as the basis of his claim to title (Complaint ¶ 2), but he does not allege the specific facts that make him a proper adverse possessor.
EUGENE DENMAN VS 4800 AVALON CORPORATION
23STCV29033
Apr 04, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The complaint attempts to allege causes of action for quiet title and declaratory relief based on a claim of adverse possession. However, the complaint does not state facts indicating that plaintiffs are entitled to the property based on adverse possession, as required under CCP Section 761.020(b). The elements of adverse possession include that the possession be “actual” and that it also be “hostile” or “adverse.” (12 Witkin, Summary of California Law, 11th ed., Real Property, §§226-227, pp. 285-288).
LOMBARD V. NIM
FCS050504
Oct 31, 2019
Solano County, CA
Mackey states that they have paid property taxes, HOA dues, and made property improvements until May 5, 2023, and otherwise declares they have met all requirements for an adverse possession claim. However, Mackey does not submit any evidence beyond this declaration which establishes any of the above-listed elements for an adverse possession claim.
MARTI MACKEY VS BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, LLC
23AHCV00284
Aug 08, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Adverse Possession One of the requirements of a viable adverse possession claim is that the possession must be hostile to the interest of the actual title owner. (Andreotti v. Andreotti (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 533, 541.) Permissive use is not adverse. (Id.) Plaintiff admits in the Complaint that the property at issue “remained in the family with the understanding that Jesus Cisneros and his wife Gloria J. Cisneros would be residing there.” (Complaint, ¶ 10.)
JESUS CISNEROS VS. MARY HERNANDEZ, ET AL.
TC029021
Apr 24, 2018
Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
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.
JAMES A MILLER, ET AL. VS TERESA A LEGAULT, ET AL.
21CHCV00313
Aug 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
Third Cause of Action for Adverse Possession As to the third cause of action for Adverse Possession, Cross-Complainant fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action and the cause of action is uncertain.
JUAN LUIS HERNANDEZ VS MARGARITA CHICAS
21TRCV00212
May 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Adverse possession by one joint owner against another joint owner may be established if the holding party can show that the other owner had notice of the adverse possession. (Id. at p. 422.) On the other hand, if the other co-tenant did not have actual or constructive notice of the hostile possession, then the holding tenant is not entitled to adverse possession, since the exclusive occupancy by one co-tenant is deemed to be permissive and not hostile to the other tenants. (Ibid, quoting West v.
JUSTIN WILLIAMSON VS. TRACY JENSEN
23CECG00701
Apr 30, 2024
Fresno County, CA
As far as this Court is aware, no California case holds that the doctrine of adverse possession extends to personal property. "The court in San Francisco Credit C. House v. Wells [(1925)] 196 Cal. 701, 707, suggested that the doctrine of adverse possession would not apply to personal property, and no California case has been cited in support of such an application." (Society of Cal. Pioneers v. Baker (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 774, 785, fn. 13; see also Bufano v.
IN THE MATTER OF SHARON ANNE HOFFMAN
56-2020-00545228-PR-LA-OXN
Jun 03, 2021
Ventura County, CA
Moreover, Plaintiff’s Complaint and all causes of action asserted therein are based on a flawed theory of adverse possession. His Complaint admits that he entered the property on October 13, 2017 (Complaint ¶ 11). This action was filed less than two weeks later, on October 26, 2017. A party claiming adverse possession must establish his continuous claim to and occupancy of the property and pay all state, county, or municipal taxes owed on the property for a five year period. Civil Code § 1007, Code Civ.
IGNACIO MENCIAS VS. FAIRLIE GUTIERRREZ, ET AL.
17-CIV-04942
Feb 13, 2018
San Mateo County, CA
Thus, a guardian may not acquire title by adverse possession against his ward, nor an agent against his principal, nor an executor against the heirs."] [Part 1 of 2]
THE ESTATE OF RICHARD MARSHALL DIXON
PES18302101
Apr 08, 2021
ELIF SONMEZ
San Francisco County, CA
Defendant OCIS demurs to the SAC on the grounds that the first cause of action for adverse possession is precluded by collateral estoppel, and the second cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress fails to plead sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. OCIS’ demurrer is well taken.
ROSEMARY THOMPSON VS O C INTERIOR SERVICES LLC ET AL
BC607078
Apr 28, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
Plaintiff argues that there is no "significant, unanticipated change in the case" because Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's claim, Defendant is not entitled to a continuance to file a dispositive motion on the adverse possession claim, and Defendant has had opportunity to conduct discovery on Plaintiff's adverse possession claim despite the claim not being pled in Plaintiff's complaint.
LITTLE BEAVER LAND COMPANY INC VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS STATE LANDS COMMISSION
34-2016-00191162-CU-OR-GDS
Nov 06, 2017
Sacramento County, CA
Real Property
other
On April 1, 2016, by separate §850 petition, administrator claimed title to the real property at 728 West Hemlock St., Port Hueneme, California, by adverse possession. The attorney-in-fact for the record title owner filed a verified objections/response on May 16, 2016, rejecting decedent's claim to title by adverse possession.
IN THE MATTER OF RAYMOND DELGADO ACEVES
56-2015-00475457-PR-LA-OXN
May 18, 2016
Ventura County, CA
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.
CALVARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS THREE DESERT STREAMS INC
RIC1826920
Sep 28, 2020
Riverside County, CA
Carpenter argues that he has established title to the Property by adverse possession. Carpenter asserted nearly identical arguments in his prior Motion for Summary Judgment, made as to his claim to quiet title. (See Carpenters Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 12/30/2022), pp. 5-10.) The Court denied that motion on April 6, 2023, finding that Carpenter failed to meet his initial burden to establish his adverse possession of the Property.
DAVID CARPENTER VS RONALD D MINER, ET AL.
22STCV10773
Jul 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The first two causes of action in the FAC of Plaintiffs allege Quiet Title by Adverse Possession Founded Upon Written Instrument against Cynthia Cotter and other unknown persons and Quiet Title by Adverse Possession Founded Upon Occupation against Cynthia Cotter and other unknown persons. The Third cause of action for Quiet Title and the Fourth cause of action for Declaratory Relief are alleged against all Defendants including Defendant Northstar.
DELAYNE R OLIVA ET AL. VS CYNTHIA COTTER ET AL.
STK-CV-URP-2016-0011729
Apr 02, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
Adverse Possession in General Adverse possession is a means of acquiring title to property, after lapse of time, by continued possession. See Civil Code § 1007 and see Silacci v. Abramson (1996) 45 C.A.4th 558, 562. Title acquired by adverse possession is absolute. Id. It is a new title, founded on the disseizin, and not the old estate of the former owner, although it is of the same nature and extent. See Williams v. Sutton (1872) 43 C. 65, 73 and Tobin v. Stevens (1988) 204 C.A.3d 945, 952.
PACIFIC REGIONAL PROPERTIES, L.P. V. GILBERT L. CONTRERAS
16CECG00749
Jun 05, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Real Property
other
Adverse Possession Defense Defendants argue that even if Plaintiff has alleged a valid easement claim then Defendants can defeat that claim by adverse possession. Perhaps Defendants will end up proving their adverse possession theory, but at the demurrer stage the Court will not find that Defendants have taken the portion of Echo Springs by adverse possession.
ROBB VS. HILL
MSC16-01077
Sep 26, 2018
Contra Costa County, CA
He claims he acquired it by adverse possession. A title acquired by adverse possession is available as the basis of an action or a defense. Baker v. Clark (1900) 128 Cal. 181.
SANFILLIPPO VS. SANFILLIPPO
30-2016-00841463-CU-OR-CJC
Mar 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
.: BC607078 Hearing Date: January 6, 2017 [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 will, and has been in possession of the Property since January 1, 1992.
ROSEMARY THOMPSON VS O C INTERIOR SERVICES LLC ET AL
BC607078
Jan 06, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
Those persons who used the land for many years claimed title through adverse possession. As to the issue of paying taxes, the Newman court stated: "'As no taxes were assessed against said strip ... this of itself would not prevent them from acquiring title by adverse possession.' (Brown v. Bachelder, 214 Cal. 753 [7 P.2d 1027]; 2 Cal.Jur.2d, Adverse Possession, § 65, p. 570.)." Id., at 291. See also Hagman v.
OTAY LAND COMPANY LLC V TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSORS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY
37-2013-00043371-CU-OR-CTL
Jan 10, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
DISCUSSION The First Amended Complaint FAC alleges causes of action for: (1) quiet title; (2) estoppel; and (3) adverse possession. (ROA 42.) Defendants demur to the third cause of action for adverse possession on the ground that the FAC does not state sufficient facts pursuant to CCP § 430.10(e).
WHITE VS JAMES
37-2022-00016625-CU-OR-CTL
May 05, 2023
San Diego County, CA
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.)
ROBERT A. WHITE, ET AL. VS AVTWO HOMES, LLC
20STCV00164
Jun 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
If an adverse possession affirmative defense is added, discovery may be required. The claim will hinge on Busiashvilis allegation that she paid taxes on the disputed area. Proving or refuting that allegation may require obtaining property tax or other documents and/or expert testimony from appraisers or others. Nonetheless, the interest of justice favors allowing the proposed amendment.
MELINA BIANCA CHIAVERINI, ET AL. VS NANA BUSIASHVILI, ET AL.
19SMCV00196
Oct 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Adverse Possession Plaintiff also contends that triable issues exist with respect to the adverse possession affirmative defense.
JOHN C TARLTON VS GREGORY B STANISLAWSKI ET AL
18CV03919
Oct 25, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
Respondent's Demurrer to Petition Pursuant to Probate Code Section 850 for Claim of Adverse Possession is SUSTAINED with leave to amend, pursuant to CCP section 430.10(e). For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the Court considers all material facts properly pleaded in the Petition as true.
THE ESTATE OF RICHARD MARSHALL DIXON
PES18302101
Jan 07, 2021
ELIF SONMEZ
San Francisco County, CA
Quiet Title Arising from Adverse Possession No dispute exists that SUZANNE holds and continues to possess record title to the property. However, a material dispute of fact does exist as to whether GERALD has destroyed SUZANNE’s seisin by adverse possession. No dispute exists that on July 2, 2009, at SUZANNE’s request GERALD paid $39,000 to prevent loss of the property from foreclosure.
LUDLOW V. VALLI CONSTRUCTION, INC.
FCS054673
Sep 28, 2021
Solano County, CA
Because there is no triable issue of material fact as to this element of Plaintiffs claims for adverse possession, summary judgment is granted for Defendant.
DAVID CARPENTER VS RONALD D MINER, ET AL.
22STCV10773
Sep 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Adverse Possession Adverse possession requires (1) actual occupation; (2) hostile to the owners title; (3) claimed under color of title or claim of right; (4) continually and uninterrupted for five years; and (5) the holder must pay all taxes during the time period. ( Dimmick v. Dimmick (1962) 58 Cal.2d 417, 421.)
BOBBIE REIF, ET AL. VS STEVEN A. KAUFFMAN, ET AL.
20SMCV00426
Aug 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Soofer next challenges plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action “To Quiet Title to Portion of Twenty Foot Easement by Adverse Possession.”
JOANNE HABIBI ET AL VS RAMIN SOOFER ET AL
1383317
Apr 19, 2012
Denise deBellefeuille
Santa Barbara County, CA
COMPLAINT Defendant demurs to the single cause of action alleged for quiet title based on adverse possession and "allodial title." Adverse Possession requires possession of the property for a minimum of five years continuously and Plaintiff must have paid all state, county, or municipal taxes during that time. (Code of Civil Procedure § 325(b).)
WINDOM-COLE VS URBAN LAB LLC
RG20055224
Sep 28, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Explanation: This action seeks to quiet title of a five-acre property located at APN 045-270-06 (“the Property”), either through adverse possession or easement by prescription. The action further seeks declaratory relief regarding the rights and duties of the parties as to the Property.
GONYE FAMILY FARMS, LLC VS. DR. WILLIAM GILBERT, JR
21CECG03658
Jul 19, 2023
Fresno County, CA
Plaintiff has occupied the Subject Property since September 2, 2010 and claims right to the property based on adverse possession. (TAC ¶ 12.)
JOSE ENRIQUE CAMACHO VS OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP ET AL
BC723980
Jan 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has occupied the Subject Property since September 2, 2010 and claims right to the property based on adverse possession. (TAC ¶ 12.)
JOSE ENRIQUE CAMACHO VS OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP ET AL
BC723980
Jan 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
Adverse Possession The third cause of action is for adverse possession. The Jameses demur on the ground that White's possession of the disputed property was, as alleged, not hostile. "[T]he doctrine of agreed boundary [is] incompatible with the rule applicable to title by adverse possession.
WHITE VS JAMES
37-2022-00016625-CU-OR-CTL
Feb 03, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Defendant claims that, at the December 14, 2017 hearing, “Judge Umhofer found that the allegations of adverse possession brought by Defendant Righetti at that time in the form of a Probate Petition took priority over the resolution of” this lawsuit. (Mtn., p. 2, ll. 5-8.) The Court has reviewed the transcript of the December 14 proceedings.
SUSAN WARREN V. TAMARA Z. RIGHETTI
17LCP-0556
May 15, 2018
Hurst
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Plaintiff has not, in the first instance, demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his adverse possession claim because the facts alleged in the Complaint and repeated in the moving papers do not demonstrate possession hostile to Defendant’s title.
REYES-DUQUE VS MAYORA
RIC1905146
Nov 20, 2019
Riverside County, CA
Further, Plaintiff is entitled to allege alternative theories of recovery such as an easement on the one hand, or alternatively, an interest in the land by adverse possession. Finally, a demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures. ( Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)
RUBEN DOMINGUEZ AS TRUSTEE OF THE RUBEN DOMINGUEZ LIVING TRUST VS ROSALBA AVALOS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
20NWCV00566
May 09, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Estate, supra, Adverse Possession, § 16:5, p. 15.) . . . that the owner nonetheless fails to look in the direction of the flag, or is not in the area to observe it, will not undermine its effect." (6 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate, supra, Adverse Possession, § 16:5, p. 14.) (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 318, 327.) Defendant has presented no evidence that negates Plaintiffs’ claim as to the Second Cause of Action, Adverse Possession, Claim of Right.
DELAYNE R OLIVA ET AL. VS CYNTHIA COTTER ET AL.
STK-CV-URP-2016-0011729
Mar 24, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
Simply put, this statute provides no increased pleading requirements on a claim of adverse possession, and there is no element to adverse possession that the adverse possessor be on the official tax roll. However, quiet title requires a verified complaint, which includes adverse possession claims. (CCP §§ 760.020, 761.020.) Cross-Complainants failed to verify their allegations, including those related to payment of taxes. (FACC ¶ 14.)
KADISHA FAMILY, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANJAY KHIANI, ET AL.
20STCV01620
Apr 14, 2021
day s
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR STRIKE PORTIONS OF 1ST AMND CRS-CMPLNT FILED BY GREG HART, STEVEN HART, KRISTIN HART, JANINE SENIOR * TENTATIVE RULING: * Cross-Defendants Greg Hart, Steven Hart, Kristen Hart and Janine Senior’s motion to strike portions of the first amended cross complaint is denied as to the request to strike “changed conditions”, “abandonment” and “adverse possession”, and the motion is otherwise granted with leave to amend.
GREG HART VS THOMAS MILWAY
MSC19-00771
Feb 24, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
Finally, Plaintiff fails to submit evidence to support his allegation that he acquired title via adverse possession. (Id. at ¶16.) To establish title by adverse possession, Plaintiff must establish possession that is uninterrupted for at least five years and payment of all taxes assessed against the property during the five-year period, among other things. (Marriage v. Keener (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 186, 192.) And here, there is no evidence of either.
CARLOS SANTOS V. RAMONA LOPEZ
14CECG00672
May 08, 2017
Fresno County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Sixth Cause of Action – Adverse Possession Defendants argue that the FAC fails to state a cause of action for adverse possession because Plaintiffs do not occupy the California Properties. According to the FAC, Aquilla and Chase live on the Kiler Canyon property, while Erich and Malcolm do not (both reside in California but outside of this county). Defendants argue that because not all four of the Plaintiffs occupy the property, they cannot allege a cause of action for adverse possession.
AQUILLA CHASE, ET AL. V. H. BARCA CHASE, ET AL.
17CVP-0255
Aug 28, 2018
San Luis Obispo County, CA
Merits of the parties’ claims Williams claim to have extinguished Zerlins’ entire driveway easement by adverse possession. 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.” Glatts v.
WILLIAMS V KLINGER
1306795
Aug 17, 2010
Santa Barbara County, CA
Adverse Possession (3rd COA) Cross-defendants argue summary adjudication in their favor is warranted because cross-complainants cannot show five or more continuous years of possession and that the occupancy was not hostile since they rely upon a purported contract or deed. MPA at 23.
ESTATE OF FRITZ SCHNICK BY AND THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR STEFANIE PAULY VS. CHARLES AITKENHEAD [E-FILE]
37-2017-00016979-CU-FR-CTL
Aug 26, 2021
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
As stated above, mere occupancy is insufficient unless the occupancy amounts to a claim for title by prescription, also referred to as adverse possession. Adverse possession is controlled by the Code of Civil Procedure. (Civ. Code § 1007.) Where a claim of adverse possession is not founded upon a written instrument, judgment, or decree, the claim shall show that the land has, among other things, been occupied and claimed for the period of five years continuously, with taxes paid. (Code Civ.
MICHAEL AVEDISIAN VS. LINDA AVEDISIAN
20CECG01278
Oct 26, 2023
Fresno County, CA
As Houck notes, the court did not dismiss the cause of action for adverse possession. If the adverse possession cause of action succeeds, plaintiff can pursue his trespass to timber claims against Barber under the theory that the land became his before the timber was cut. The court declines to accept Barbers overly broad interpretation of its 2018 ruling. DENIED. DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR BY MICROSOFT OFFICE TEAMS.
DAVID HOUCK VS JAMES L. BARBER
SC126958
Apr 22, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
GARSIDE, ET AL NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION — FOR QUIET TITLE AND ADVERSE POSSESSION [RESP] CAMERON COLSON [RESP] RALPH GARSIDE RULING The “Motion for Quiet Title and Adverse Possession” filed on September 16, 2022, by respondents Ralph Garside and Cameron Colson (collectively “Respondents”), is DENIED. Although captioned as a “motion,” the document appears to be another attempt to file a cross- complaint for which Respondents have neither sought leave of court nor have been granted the same.
COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL
CV2000431
Jan 25, 2023
Marin County, CA
GARSIDE, ET AL NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION — FOR QUIET TITLE AND ADVERSE POSSESSION [RESP] CAMERON COLSON [RESP] RALPH GARSIDE RULING The “Motion for Quiet Title and Adverse Possession” filed on September 16, 2022, by respondents Ralph Garside and Cameron Colson (collectively “Respondents”), is DENIED. Although captioned as a “motion,” the document appears to be another attempt to file a cross- complaint for which Respondents have neither sought leave of court nor have been granted the same.
COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL
CV2000431
Jan 26, 2023
Marin County, CA
GARSIDE, ET AL NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION — FOR QUIET TITLE AND ADVERSE POSSESSION [RESP] CAMERON COLSON [RESP] RALPH GARSIDE RULING The “Motion for Quiet Title and Adverse Possession” filed on September 16, 2022, by respondents Ralph Garside and Cameron Colson (collectively “Respondents”), is DENIED. Although captioned as a “motion,” the document appears to be another attempt to file a cross- complaint for which Respondents have neither sought leave of court nor have been granted the same.
COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL
CV2000431
Jan 23, 2023
Marin County, CA
GARSIDE, ET AL NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION — FOR QUIET TITLE AND ADVERSE POSSESSION [RESP] CAMERON COLSON [RESP] RALPH GARSIDE RULING The “Motion for Quiet Title and Adverse Possession” filed on September 16, 2022, by respondents Ralph Garside and Cameron Colson (collectively “Respondents”), is DENIED. Although captioned as a “motion,” the document appears to be another attempt to file a cross- complaint for which Respondents have neither sought leave of court nor have been granted the same.
COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL
CV2000431
Jan 20, 2023
Marin County, CA
GARSIDE, ET AL NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION — FOR QUIET TITLE AND ADVERSE POSSESSION [RESP] CAMERON COLSON [RESP] RALPH GARSIDE RULING The “Motion for Quiet Title and Adverse Possession” filed on September 16, 2022, by respondents Ralph Garside and Cameron Colson (collectively “Respondents”), is DENIED. Although captioned as a “motion,” the document appears to be another attempt to file a cross- complaint for which Respondents have neither sought leave of court nor have been granted the same.
COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL
CV2000431
Jan 21, 2023
Marin County, CA
The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) fraud/conspiracy to commit fraud, (2) declaratory relief, (3) quiet title/establishment of title by adverse possession, (4) quiet title/establishment of adverse possession, (5) quiet title/removal of encroachments, and (6) trespass.
AWAL INVESTMENT, LLC VS GRACE CARELLI, ET AL.
21SMCV00474
Apr 12, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
GARSIDE, ET AL NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION — FOR QUIET TITLE AND ADVERSE POSSESSION [RESP] CAMERON COLSON [RESP] RALPH GARSIDE RULING The “Motion for Quiet Title and Adverse Possession” filed on September 16, 2022, by respondents Ralph Garside and Cameron Colson (collectively “Respondents”), is DENIED. Although captioned as a “motion,” the document appears to be another attempt to file a cross- complaint for which Respondents have neither sought leave of court nor have been granted the same.
COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL
CV2000431
Jan 22, 2023
Marin County, CA
GARSIDE, ET AL NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION — FOR QUIET TITLE AND ADVERSE POSSESSION [RESP] CAMERON COLSON [RESP] RALPH GARSIDE RULING The “Motion for Quiet Title and Adverse Possession” filed on September 16, 2022, by respondents Ralph Garside and Cameron Colson (collectively “Respondents”), is DENIED. Although captioned as a “motion,” the document appears to be another attempt to file a cross- complaint for which Respondents have neither sought leave of court nor have been granted the same.
COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL
CV2000431
Jan 24, 2023
Marin County, CA
Seventh Cause of Action – Adverse Possession The elements of a cause of action for adverse possession are as follows: (1) open and notorious use; (2) hostile to the true owner; (3) for a period of five years; (4) continuous and uninterrupted; (5) under claim of right; and (6) plaintiff paid taxes on the land. Proof the elements required for adverse possession gives a successful claimant tile to the property. (Mehdizadeh v. Mincer (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1305.)
SARA G. GARCIA VS. RUDOLPH QUINTANA
VC065470
Feb 16, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
As such, her only pathway to satisfy this element of a claim for adverse possession is via a "claim of right." 'Claim of Right' defined. A claimant lacking color of title can claim title by adverse possession under a mere claim of right. A claim of right means that the possessor had the intent, as evidenced by his or her objective acts of ownership, to claim the title to the property and to hold it against the world.
ALONDRA ORIBIO VS. HENRY REYES, DECEASED, ESTATE OF HENRY REYES
37-2018-00000029-CU-FR-NC
Oct 25, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
On September 28, 2015, petitioner dismissed her probate petition, electing to proceed solely on the subsequently filed "adverse possession" quiet title action. Accordingly, the probate court transfers this matter to the civil supervising judge for reassignment within the civil division. gmr
IN THE MATTER OF CARLOTTA MOLINA REAL
56-2015-00467549-PR-PS-OXN
Sep 30, 2015
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
.: BC607078 HEARING TO BE HELD IN DEPT 5 Hearing Date: November 21, 2016 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 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 will, and has been in possession of the Property since January 1, 1992.
ROSEMARY THOMPSON VS O C INTERIOR SERVICES LLC ET AL
BC607078
Nov 21, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
On March 25, 2022 the court denied Barbers motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Houcks causes of action alleging trespass to timber, on the grounds that Houcks cause of action for adverse possession had not yet been adjudicated. 3/25/2022 minute order, pg. 2. On September 22, 2022 during court trial, the court granted Barbers motion for nonsuit as to the cause of action for adverse possession. At the conclusion of trial, the court ruled Barber owns the disputed area.
DAVID HOUCK VS JAMES L. BARBER
SC126958
Jan 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Achievement of that objective required proof and findings of the elements of adverse possession, not prescriptive use. (Id.) Where the claim is adverse possession and not mere prescriptive use, payment of taxes for the statutory period is essential. ( Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church (1959) 51 Cal.2d 702, 707; Mehdisadeh v.
RUBEN DOMINGUEZ AS TRUSTEE OF THE RUBEN DOMINGUEZ LIVING TRUST VS ROSALBA AVALOS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
20NWCV00566
Aug 09, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The court expressly found the easement rights had been limited based on its finding of adverse possession. (Reply, page 1, lines 22-27). The legal effect of adverse possession is to extinguish the prior interest. (See Cannon v. Stockmon (1869) 36 Cal. 535, 541 – the lapse of time limited by [adverse possession] not only bars the remedy, but it extinguishes the right, and vests a perfect title in the adverse holder.)
SOUTHFORK RANCH LLC VS. DAVID BUNN
56-2014-00449856-CU-BC-VTA
Jul 13, 2015
Ventura County, CA
On 2/8/2024, Plaintiffs filed a verified third amended complaint (TAC) against the Harb Family Trust dated 11/1/1996, the Irrevocable Trust of chou Bo Chan Chiu (1997) for the benefit of Samson Chiu, and Fusion Investments, LLC (Fusion) alleging: (1) declaratory relief; and (2) quiet title-adverse possession. On 3/7/2024, Fusion demurred to Plaintiffs TAC.
THE JEFFREY S. MARKS SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST ESTABLISHED UNDER THE JEFFREY AND LORETTA MARKS FAMILY TRUST,, ET AL. VS HARB FAMILY TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 1, 1996, ET AL.
21STCV40738
Apr 08, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Explanation: This action seeks to quiet title of a five-acre property located at APN 045-270-06 (“the Property”), either through adverse possession, or easement by prescription. The action further seeks declaratory relief regarding the rights and duties of the parties as to the Property. The defaults of each of the defendants were previously entered except: (1) the County of Fresno, who has consented to judgment subject to certain reservations; and (2) the DOE defendants remain.
GONYE FAMILY FARMS, LLC VS. DR. WILLIAM GILBERT, JR
21CECG03658
Apr 04, 2023
Fresno County, CA
Probability of Success on the Merits Here, Plaintiffs claim that the evidence in the verified complaint shows that they have acquired adverse possession no later than 2004.
ALLISON V. MUFG UNION BANK, N.A.
16CECG00691
May 16, 2016
Fresno County, CA
Real Property
other
They contend that defendants unduly delayed in raising their claims regarding adverse possession and equitable easement, which they concede have existed for decades, and therefore they should not be allowed to raise them now. However, the defense of laches does not apply to claims of adverse possession. “Defendants cite no cases holding laches to bar a claim of adverse possession, and apparently no published California opinion so holds.
BILL CHIASSON VS. RICK NICHOLAS DBA NICHOLAS FAMILY FARMS
22CECG02499
Nov 28, 2023
Fresno County, CA
While the declaration of John Giovannetti is sufficient to establish the first four elements of adverse possession, some type of documentary evidence is necessary to demonstrate that Plaintiff B.E. Giovannetti & Sons has paid all taxes levied and assessed on the four parcels during the five years prior to September 4, 2014, the date the original complaint was filed.
B.E. GIOVANNETTI & SONS V. FRATER
14CECG02589
Jul 26, 2016
Fresno County, CA
Real Property
other
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.
SHERMAN E. MAYERS VS MAGMUN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC
VC067276
Sep 25, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
Defendant argues this is insufficient to support a claim of adverse possession, as it is settled that a mortgagor does not hold an adverse claim to title for purposes of adverse possession. Defendant relies on Harvey v.
ESPERANZA D BAGWELL VS JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ET AL.
19GDCV00005
Mar 29, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
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 1305-08.) Plaintiff agrees with this proposition, but contends that it is not seeking an exclusive easement. (PSS nos. 55-58.) However, the very nature of the easement involves an exclusive taking. (See Raab v.
9009 WONDERLAND AVE LLC VS RND WONDERLAND ASSOCIATES LLC ET
BC695582
Jul 24, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
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; and (e) a prayer for the determination of the title of the Plaintiff against the adverse claims. Id.
RUDOLPH R. FORREST VS OREN C. QUALLS
20CMCV00248
Jan 13, 2022
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
This Court finds that the allegations in the FAC as to adverse possession are sufficient for purposes of demurrer to establish the element of hostility. The Demurrer to the third COA for adverse possession is OVERRULED. D. Eighth Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment: Defendant argues that the unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed because it is not a cause of action, but rather a basis for restitutionary relief. (Dem. at p.10.)
SANDRA C. GONZALES ET AL. VS GLORIA TREJO
STK-CV-UBC-2020-0000032
Feb 16, 2021
San Joaquin County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.