Mehdizadeh v. Mincer

• Decision Date: 27 June 1996
• Docket Number: No. B081681,B081681
• Citation: 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 284,46 Cal.App.4th 1296
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4860, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8043 Kamran MEHDIZADEH, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. Tom R. MINCER, et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.

Page 284

54 Cal.Rptr.2d 284

46 Cal.App.4th 1296, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4860,

96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8043

Kamran MEHDIZADEH, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. Tom R. MINCER, et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.

No. B081681.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

June 27, 1996.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing

July 24, 1996.

Review Denied Oct. 23, 1996.

Morton Frisch & Associates and Morton Frisch, Sherman Oaks, for Defendants, Cross-defendant and Appellants.

Behrouz Shafie & Associates and Behrouz Shafie, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff, Cross-complainants and Respondent.

KITCHING, Acting Presiding Justice.

INTRODUCTION

Real property law distinguishes between the different concepts of adverse possession and prescriptive easement. It is more difficult to prove adverse possession, and with good reason; a claimant relying on adverse possession seeks fee title to disputed property. A prescriptive easement, by contrast, simply allows a claimant the restricted use of property owned by another.

This appeal involves a dispute between neighbors which followed their discovery that a fence built many years earlier was not located on the legal boundary between their properties. The claimant could not prove adverse possession because he did not pay taxes on the disputed property. The trial court nonetheless granted the claimant a prescriptive easement, but that easement was so broad that it denied the record title owners virtually all use of their property.

We hold that when a claimant cannot satisfy the requirements for adverse possession, the claimant may not receive a prescriptive easement which extends so far that it becomes the equivalent of a fee interest and dispossesses the record title owners of part of their property. We further hold that under the facts of this case, the claimant also failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a grant of title pursuant to the "agreedboundary doctrine." We reverse the judgment with directions that the trial court quiet title to the disputed property in the legal owners.

FACTS

Plaintiff and respondent Kamran Mehdizadeh ("Mehdizadeh") filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and for damages against defendants and appellants Tom R. Mincer and Janet Mincer ("Mincers"). Mehdizadeh's complaint sought a prescriptive easement over a portion of the Mincers' property, an injunction ordering the Mincers to remove a fence and to restore the property to its former condition, and damages. The Mincers cross-complained for declaratory relief and to quiet title. A trial by the court disclosed the following facts.

In 1967, Mr. Cruz owned real property at 16957 Encino Hills Drive and installed a six-foot-high chain link fence ("fence number 1") between his property and the adjacent lot at 16951 Encino Hills Drive.

In November 1967, Donald Weissman and his wife ("Weissmans") purchased 16951 Encino Hills Drive. Cruz informed the Weissmans of the cost of the chain link fence, and the Weissmans paid half that cost. Although the Weissmans assumed the fence was installed where their property ended, they did not know whether or not the fence was located on the property line.

On June 27, 1985, Cruz sold 16957 Encino Hills Drive to the Mincers. When they bought the property, the Mincers knew from plot maps that the chain link fence was not placed on the legal boundary. The record does not reflect the date, but at some point while the Weissmans still owned the adjacent property, the Mincers gave notice to the Weissmans, and then straightened out a small irregularity in the fence. The Weissmans did not recall discussing property lines in relation to making this small change. The Mincers did not have a survey done at that point.

On March 20, 1990, the Weissmans sold 16951 Encino Hills Drive to Mehdizadeh. They never told Mehdizadeh the fence represented the legal boundary. Mehdizadeh did not have a survey performed before he bought the property.

In 1990, the Mincers commissioned a survey, which established the legal boundary between the two properties. After receiving the survey, the Mincers determined that a fence dividing their property from that of Mehdizadeh should be located 10 feet down the slope from the original chain link fence. The Mincers delivered a survey map to Mehdizadeh on October 15, 1990. Mehdizadeh did not dispute the accuracy of the survey. In October 1990, the Mincers installed a new chain link fence ("fence number 2") at the boundary disclosed by the survey. Fence number 1 has not been removed.

The "disputed property" is that area between fence number 1 and fence number 2. It contains approximately 10 trees and numerous shrubs. Before fence number 2 was built, Mehdizadeh occasionally cared for the vegetation in the disputed property, and the sprinkler system of the disputed property was connected to Mehdizadeh's water supply. He maintained and repaired that sprinkler system. Mehdizadeh enjoyed the view of the disputed property, and his dog used the disputed property.

Construction of fence number 2 destroyed vegetation and also destroyed sprinkler systems, for which Mehdizadeh sought damages.

The trial court's judgment found in favor of Mehdizadeh. The judgment ordered, pursuant to the agreed-boundary doctrine, that the boundary line be set at the location of fence number 1. Mehdizadeh was to obtain title to the disputed land in fee simple, but was enjoined from using that land for any purposes other than landscaping and recreation; no structure of any kind was to be built or maintained on that property, except for fences and a retaining wall. The Mincers were to have an easement for light, air, and privacy; were ordered to remove fence number 2; and were ordered to pay Mehdizadeh $1,500 damages to restore the property to its original condition as it existed before their obstruction. Mehdizadeh was to arrange for reassessment of the property and payment of corresponding property taxes. If a new fence was built, Mehdizadeh was to bear the cost. Any new fence was to be erected on Mehdizadeh's side of fence number 1; it could not exceed 12"' in width and could not interfere with the Mincers' existing views. The judgment also found that Mehdizadeh met the requirements for a prescriptive easement and ordered that it be granted subject to the same restrictions and conditions regarding the agreed boundary.

ISSUES

The Mincers claim on appeal that the trial court erroneously imposed an agreed boundary and erroneously granted Mehdizadeh a prescriptive easement.

DISCUSSION

1. The Agreed-Boundary Doctrine

The agreed-boundary doctrine is an exception to the general rule, which accords determinative legal effect to a description of land contained in a deed. As an exception, the doctrine may be invoked only under specific circumstances. The party claiming the land pursuant to the doctrine bears the burden of establishing that there is " an uncertainty as to the true boundary line, an agreement between the coterminous owners fixing the line, and acceptance and acquiescence in the line so fixed for a period equal to the statute of limitations or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position." (Bryant v. Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.4th 47, 54-55, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 86, 884 P.2d 1034, quoting Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church (1959) 51 Cal.2d 702, 707, 336 P.2d 525.)

Where no evidence shows that prior owners of adjoining parcels agreed to resolve a boundary dispute and where legal records provide a reasonable basis for fixing the boundary, the agreed-boundary doctrine does not apply. Bryant held that the application of the doctrine was erroneous because the parties relying on the agreed-boundary doctrine failed to demonstrate that an uncertainty about the true boundary led prior coterminous owners to agree to fix the boundary at the location of a barbed wire fence. ¹ (Bryant, supra, at pp. 53-54, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 86, 884 P.2d 1034.)

The Mincers claim that in imposing an agreed boundary, the trial court erroneously relied entirely on implication from a long period of acquiescence by the parties' predecessors in title, with no evidence as to original owners' uncertainty and agreement as to the boundary line.

They rely on language in Bryant that refers to several Court of Appeal decisions. "The common theme of these decisions is a deference to the sanctity of true and accurate legal descriptions and a concomitant reluctance to allow such descriptions to be invalidated by implication, through reliance upon unreliable boundaries created by fences or foliage, or by other inexact means of demarcation." (Bryant v. Blevins, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 55, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 86, 884 P.2d 1034.)

In Bryant, the record was silent as to when, or why, a barbed wire fence dividing two lots was built. The presence of the fence from 1977 until plaintiffs purchased their lot in 1986 suggested a lengthy acquiescence to its existence by plaintiffs' predecessor in interest. That circumstance alone, however, did not nullify the other requirements set forth in Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church; there had to be an uncertainty as to the location of the true boundary when the fence was erected, and neighboring property owners had to agree to use the fence to establish the boundary. In Bryant, no evidence satisfied either requirement. "[W]hen existing legal records provide a basis for fixing the boundary, there is no justification for inferring, without additional evidence, that the prior owners were uncertain as to the location of the true boundary or that they agreed to fix their common boundary at the location of a fence.... [T]he agreed-boundary doctrine should not be invoked under the circumstances of the present case to trump the boundary established by the legal records." (Bryant v. Blevins, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 58, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 86, 884 P.2d 1034.)

Bryant governs this appeal. Fence number 1 existed...