Mehdizadeh v. Mincer
46 Cal. App. 4th 1296 · California Court of Appeal · 1996
Facts
In 1967, Mr. Cruz installed a chain link fence (Fence No. 1) between his property at 16957 Encino Hills Drive and the adjacent lot at 16951 Encino Hills Drive. The Weissmans purchased 16951 Encino Hills Drive in November 1967, paid half the cost of Fence No. 1, and assumed it was on the property line, though they did not know for sure. In June 1985, the Mincers purchased 16957 Encino Hills Drive and knew from plot maps that Fence No. 1 was not on the legal boundary. In March 1990, the Weissmans sold 16951 Encino Hills Drive to Kamran Mehdizadeh, without informing him that Fence No. 1 was the legal boundary. Later in 1990, the Mincers commissioned a survey that established the legal boundary 10 feet down the slope from Fence No. 1, and Mehdizadeh did not dispute its accuracy. The Mincers then installed a new fence (Fence No. 2) at the surveyed boundary, but Fence No. 1 was not removed. The area between the two fences, containing trees and shrubs, became the disputed property, which Mehdizadeh had occasionally cared for, maintained its sprinkler system, and allowed his dog to use.
Procedural history
Mehdizadeh filed a complaint seeking a prescriptive easement, injunctive relief, and damages. The Mincers cross-complained for declaratory relief and to quiet title. A trial by the court found in favor of Mehdizadeh, ordering the boundary at Fence No. 1, granting him fee simple title to the disputed land with use restrictions, and also finding he met the requirements for a prescriptive easement. The Mincers appealed the trial court's judgment.
Issue
Can a claimant who cannot satisfy the requirements for adverse possession receive a prescriptive easement that is so broad it becomes the equivalent of a fee interest and dispossesses the record title owners? Did the trial court err in granting title under the agreed-boundary doctrine when there was no evidence of original uncertainty or agreement between prior owners?
Holding
No, a prescriptive easement cannot be granted if it is so broad as to be the equivalent of a fee interest and dispossess the record title owners. The trial court erred in granting title under the agreed-boundary doctrine due to insufficient evidence. The judgment is reversed, and title to the disputed property is quieted in the legal owners.
Rule
Real property law distinguishes between adverse possession, which grants fee title and requires tax payment, and a prescriptive easement, which grants a restricted right to use another's property without requiring tax payment. To establish a prescriptive easement, the use must be open and notorious, continuous and uninterrupted, hostile to the true owner, and under claim of right for five years. However, a prescriptive easement cannot be so comprehensive as to provide the equivalent of ownership or dispossess the record title owner, especially in a residential dispute without public health or safety justifications. The agreed-boundary doctrine requires proof of an uncertainty as to the true boundary line, an agreement between coterminous owners fixing the line, and acceptance and acquiescence in the line for the statutory period, and should not be invoked to override legal records without such evidence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.