Adverse Possession Claims in California

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.)

Elements of a Claim

In order to allege and prove a claim of adverse possession (claim of right), Plaintiff must establish:

  1. possession is by actual occupation under such circumstances as to constitute reasonable notice to the owner;
  2. possession is be hostile to the owner's title;
  3. the holder claims the property [as] her/his own, either under color of title, or claim of right;
  4. possessionn was be continuous and uninterrupted for five years; and
  5. 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.)

Rulings for Adverse Possession Claims in California

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.

  • Name

    LOPEZ VS. THE TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSORS OF JOSEPH ROBERT POWELL II, BELIEVED TO BE DECEASED

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01155068

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2021

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.

  • Name

    SINGH V. SHARMA

  • Case No.

    FCS047549

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2018

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.

  • Name

    DUDA ADAMS VS GG&C 1 LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21CHCV00189

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    AMARJIT GILL, ET AL. VS. ELIAS ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17CV-01969

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2019

  • County

    Merced County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    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.)

  • Name

    HARCH VS DANSK

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00447060-CU-MC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2015

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.

  • Name

    JOSEFINA GALINDO VS. DEED OF TRUST #20071755925

  • Case No.

    LC106596

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2018

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.

  • Name

    CAROL JONES VS TONY RODRIGUES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19CV-01806

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2023

  • County

    Merced 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.

  • Name

    ROSEMARY THOMPSON VS O C INTERIOR SERVICES LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC607078

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2016

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.

  • Name

    MARCEL JORDAN VS WILLIAM CARR, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV45863

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

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.

  • Name

    WILLIAMS V KLINGER

  • Case No.

    1306795

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2009

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).

  • Name

    CARLOS MORENO VS ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE

  • Case No.

    22PSCV00563

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ABDUL MADYUN VS. COMMUNITY GENTRIFICATION CORP. ET. AL.

  • Case No.

    TC028154

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2017

  • Judge

    Steven D. Blades or Brian S. Currey

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    OTAY LAND COMPANY LLC V TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSORS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY

  • Case No.

    37-2013-00043371-CU-OR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

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").

  • Name

    JAMES LEE PADGETT VS ALAN LUONG LAM, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20GDCV00101

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    MELINA BIANCA CHIAVERINI, ET AL. VS NANA BUSIASHVILI, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19SMCV00196

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    SMALLEY VS SILVERGATE RSF

  • Case No.

    37-2023-00043437-CL-OR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MARTINEZ VS ARANGURE

  • Case No.

    CVRI2202170

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2022

  • County

    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.)

  • Case No.

    ['CVRI2202170', 'CVRI2202170']

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2022

  • County

    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

  • Name

    THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON VS. JOSE TRINIDAD

  • Case No.

    17CECG01907

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2022

  • County

    Fresno 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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19GDCV00005

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2019

Plaintiff also fails to submit adequate evidence to support his allegation that he acquired title via adverse possession. (Complaint, ¶16.)

  • Name

    CARLOS SANTOS V. RAMONA LOPEZ

  • Case No.

    14CECG00672

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2017

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.

  • Name

    GEORGE C. KOPEK, ET AL. VS BAGRAM MARDIROSSIAN

  • Case No.

    19SMCV02073

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    ROSEMARY THOMPSON VS O C INTERIOR SERVICES LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC607078

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2017

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.

  • Name

    BRUCE D. MANSDORF VS FRANCES ONTKEAN

  • Case No.

    22SMCV00989

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    JESUS CISNEROS VS. MARY HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    TC029021

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2018

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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).

  • Name

    LOMBARD V. NIM

  • Case No.

    FCS050504

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2019

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.

  • Name

    WOODY VS ESTATE OF BETTY WOODY

  • Case No.

    CVSW2102035

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

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.

  • Name

    DAVID CARPENTER VS RONALD D MINER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV10773

  • Hearing

    Apr 06, 2023

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.

  • Name

    MARTI MACKEY VS BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, LLC

  • Case No.

    23AHCV00284

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    JESUS CISNEROS VS. MARY HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    TC029021

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2018

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    JAMES A MILLER, ET AL. VS TERESA A LEGAULT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21CHCV00313

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2021

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.

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF RAYMOND DELGADO ACEVES

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00475457-PR-LA-OXN

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2016

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.

  • Name

    JUAN LUIS HERNANDEZ VS MARGARITA CHICAS

  • Case No.

    21TRCV00212

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF SHARON ANNE HOFFMAN

  • Case No.

    56-2020-00545228-PR-LA-OXN

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2021

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.

  • Name

    IGNACIO MENCIAS VS. FAIRLIE GUTIERRREZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17-CIV-04942

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2018

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]

  • Name

    THE ESTATE OF RICHARD MARSHALL DIXON

  • Case No.

    PES18302101

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2021

  • Judge

    ELIF SONMEZ

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ROSEMARY THOMPSON VS O C INTERIOR SERVICES LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC607078

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2017

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.

  • Name

    LITTLE BEAVER LAND COMPANY INC VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS STATE LANDS COMMISSION

  • Case No.

    34-2016-00191162-CU-OR-GDS

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2017

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.

  • Name

    DELAYNE R OLIVA ET AL. VS CYNTHIA COTTER ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-URP-2016-0011729

  • Hearing

    Apr 02, 2019

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.

  • Name

    DAVID CARPENTER VS RONALD D MINER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV10773

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2023

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.

  • Name

    CALVARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS THREE DESERT STREAMS INC

  • Case No.

    RIC1826920

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

.: 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.

  • Name

    ROSEMARY THOMPSON VS O C INTERIOR SERVICES LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC607078

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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.

  • Name

    PACIFIC REGIONAL PROPERTIES, L.P. V. GILBERT L. CONTRERAS

  • Case No.

    16CECG00749

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2017

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.

  • Name

    ROBB VS. HILL

  • Case No.

    MSC16-01077

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2018

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.

  • Name

    SANFILLIPPO VS. SANFILLIPPO

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00841463-CU-OR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2017

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.

  • Name

    OTAY LAND COMPANY LLC V TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSORS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY

  • Case No.

    37-2013-00043371-CU-OR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

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).

  • Name

    WHITE VS JAMES

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00016625-CU-OR-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

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.

  • Name

    MELINA BIANCA CHIAVERINI, ET AL. VS NANA BUSIASHVILI, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19SMCV00196

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.)

  • Name

    ROBERT A. WHITE, ET AL. VS AVTWO HOMES, LLC

  • Case No.

    20STCV00164

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

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.

  • Name

    THE ESTATE OF RICHARD MARSHALL DIXON

  • Case No.

    PES18302101

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Judge

    ELIF SONMEZ

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    LUDLOW V. VALLI CONSTRUCTION, INC.

  • Case No.

    FCS054673

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DAVID CARPENTER VS RONALD D MINER, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV10773

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2023

Adverse Possession Plaintiff also contends that triable issues exist with respect to the adverse possession affirmative defense.

  • Name

    JOHN C TARLTON VS GREGORY B STANISLAWSKI ET AL

  • Case No.

    18CV03919

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2021

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).)

  • Name

    WINDOM-COLE VS URBAN LAB LLC

  • Case No.

    RG20055224

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2021

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.

  • Name

    GONYE FAMILY FARMS, LLC VS. DR. WILLIAM GILBERT, JR

  • Case No.

    21CECG03658

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2023

  • County

    Fresno 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.)

  • Name

    BOBBIE REIF, ET AL. VS STEVEN A. KAUFFMAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20SMCV00426

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Soofer next challenges plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action “To Quiet Title to Portion of Twenty Foot Easement by Adverse Possession.”

  • Name

    JOANNE HABIBI ET AL VS RAMIN SOOFER ET AL

  • Case No.

    1383317

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2012

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

Plaintiff has occupied the Subject Property since September 2, 2010 and claims right to the property based on adverse possession. (TAC ¶ 12.)

  • Name

    JOSE ENRIQUE CAMACHO VS OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC723980

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    JOSE ENRIQUE CAMACHO VS OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC723980

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    WHITE VS JAMES

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00016625-CU-OR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    SUSAN WARREN V. TAMARA Z. RIGHETTI

  • Case No.

    17LCP-0556

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2018

  • Judge

    Hurst

  • County

    San Luis Obispo 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.)

  • Name

    RUBEN DOMINGUEZ AS TRUSTEE OF THE RUBEN DOMINGUEZ LIVING TRUST VS ROSALBA AVALOS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20NWCV00566

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    REYES-DUQUE VS MAYORA

  • Case No.

    RIC1905146

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2019

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.

  • Name

    GREG HART VS THOMAS MILWAY

  • Case No.

    MSC19-00771

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2021

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.

  • Name

    DELAYNE R OLIVA ET AL. VS CYNTHIA COTTER ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-URP-2016-0011729

  • Hearing

    Mar 24, 2021

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.

  • Name

    CARLOS SANTOS V. RAMONA LOPEZ

  • Case No.

    14CECG00672

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2017

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.

  • Name

    COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV2000431

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV2000431

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV2000431

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV2000431

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV2000431

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV2000431

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    COUNTY OF MARIN VS. RALPH H, GARSIDE, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV2000431

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2023

  • County

    Marin 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.

  • Name

    DAVID HOUCK VS JAMES L. BARBER

  • Case No.

    SC126958

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.

  • Name

    AWAL INVESTMENT, LLC VS GRACE CARELLI, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21SMCV00474

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles 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.)

  • Name

    KADISHA FAMILY, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SANJAY KHIANI, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV01620

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2021

  • Judge

    day s

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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.

  • Name

    MICHAEL AVEDISIAN VS. LINDA AVEDISIAN

  • Case No.

    20CECG01278

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2023

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

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.

  • Name

    AQUILLA CHASE, ET AL. V. H. BARCA CHASE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17CVP-0255

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2018

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.

  • Name

    ESTATE OF FRITZ SCHNICK BY AND THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR STEFANIE PAULY VS. CHARLES AITKENHEAD [E-FILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00016979-CU-FR-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2021

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.

  • Name

    WILLIAMS V KLINGER

  • Case No.

    1306795

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2010

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.)

  • Name

    SARA G. GARCIA VS. RUDOLPH QUINTANA

  • Case No.

    VC065470

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF CARLOTTA MOLINA REAL

  • Case No.

    56-2015-00467549-PR-PS-OXN

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2015

.: 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.

  • Name

    ROSEMARY THOMPSON VS O C INTERIOR SERVICES LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC607078

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    DAVID HOUCK VS JAMES L. BARBER

  • Case No.

    SC126958

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    ALONDRA ORIBIO VS. HENRY REYES, DECEASED, ESTATE OF HENRY REYES

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00000029-CU-FR-NC

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

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.

  • Name

    GONYE FAMILY FARMS, LLC VS. DR. WILLIAM GILBERT, JR

  • Case No.

    21CECG03658

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2023

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

BY GRANTING SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF THE ADVERSE POSSESSION CLAIM, THE COURT HAS FOUND THAT PLAINTIFF IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THAT FINDING MOOTS THE REMAINING CLAIMS FOR RELIEF BY ALL PARTIES. =(302/PJM)

  • Name

    MACOR INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO A MUNICIPAL ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC07460994

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2008

The documentation regarding defendant Hans Burkhart’s residency status is relevant to the adverse possession and prescriptive easement issues raised by both parties in their operative pleadings. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is granted. Sanctions in the amount of $2,400 are imposed upon defendants. Defendants’ request for sanctions is denied.

  • Name

    LINDSTROM, JAMES V. SCHNEIDER, ANIKA

  • Case No.

    S-CV-0047108

  • Hearing

    May 12, 2022

  • County

    Placer 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.

  • Name

    ALLISON V. MUFG UNION BANK, N.A.

  • Case No.

    16CECG00691

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2016

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.

  • Name

    B.E. GIOVANNETTI & SONS V. FRATER

  • Case No.

    14CECG02589

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2016

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.

  • Name

    SHERMAN E. MAYERS VS MAGMUN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC

  • Case No.

    VC067276

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2018

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.)

  • Name

    SOUTHFORK RANCH LLC VS. DAVID BUNN

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00449856-CU-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2015

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.

  • Name

    RUBEN DOMINGUEZ AS TRUSTEE OF THE RUBEN DOMINGUEZ LIVING TRUST VS ROSALBA AVALOS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20NWCV00566

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Name

    BILL CHIASSON VS. RICK NICHOLAS DBA NICHOLAS FAMILY FARMS

  • Case No.

    22CECG02499

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2023

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

Jones, John Rodriguez, and Randy Rodrigues for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative Summary Adjudication on the grounds that the First Cause of Action for Adverse Possession fails because possession was not hostile, and the Second Cause of Action for Determination of Surviving Spouse Property Share fails because the joint tenancy was severed priod to death.

  • Name

    CAROL JONES VS TONY RODRIGUES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19CV-01806

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2022

  • County

    Merced County, CA

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19GDCV00005

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2019

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.

  • Name

    9009 WONDERLAND AVE LLC VS RND WONDERLAND ASSOCIATES LLC ET

  • Case No.

    BC695582

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2019

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.

  • Name

    RUDOLPH R. FORREST VS OREN C. QUALLS

  • Case No.

    20CMCV00248

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2022

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    SANDRA C. GONZALES ET AL. VS GLORIA TREJO

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UBC-2020-0000032

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2021

Plaintiff has brought a civil suit claiming adverse possession, quiet title, and declaratory relief. Defendant Guadalupe Holquin Espinoza opposes the motion. Defendant's opposition includes additional facts omitted from the moving papers. The Court issued a statement of decision on March 2, 2012. Decedent passed away on March 12, 2012, while the dissolution action was pending.

  • Name

    ARMANDO E ESPINOZA VS. GUADALUPE HOLQUIN ESPINOZA AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ATOCHA HOLQUIN ESPINOZA

  • Case No.

    34-2017-00223015-CU-OR-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2018

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope