Boundary Line Agreement California
At the hearing, the court concluded that the fence was not the boundary according to the doctrine of the boundary by agreement and that the defendants would not suffer a “significant loss” if the fence was moved to the real border. The Court then concluded that the applicants were entitled to silent titles on the basis of the true limit. California courts have repeatedly shot down the agreed border doctrine because a border is not uncertain about its ability to be determined by a poll. Courts tend to respect “the sanctity of true and accurate legal descriptions.” Is a fence an agreed limit? The mere existence of a closure will not induce a court to infer an agreement without proof of such an agreement. The fact that a fence is somewhere other than on the actual boundary line does not mean that the owners had some uncertainty about the boundary of the land or that the fence was intended to resolve such insecurity. Even if the fence had been in existence for many years, this in itself does not meet the requirement that there was some uncertainty at the border or that the fence was designed as an agreement on what the border should be. A California court ruled that “while existing legal records provide a basis for defining the boundary, there is no justification, without additional evidence, for concluding that the former owners were unsure of the location of the true boundary or that they agreed to fix their common boundary in place of a fence. California law recognizes the right of two neighboring landowners to agree on a specific line or mark that acts as a land line between the two parcels, regardless of the legal description in the deed of each package. This right is known as the Agreed Boundary-Doctrine. To establish the doctrine of agreed boundaries, a landowner must prove an agreement between the two adjacent owners and uncertainty about the true boundary.
Keywords: dispute, border, California, real estate, border, owner, survey, monument, legal description, lawyer, evidence, silent title, negotiation, litigation The most common real estate disputes between neighbors are border disputes between their adjacent properties. Real estate lawyers who deal with border disputes between neighbors can confirm that, of all kinds of real estate disputes, border disputes can be ugly, bitterly contested and bitter. In theory, these types of complaints should be easy to resolve. The parties may conduct a survey that marks the legal description of the property to determine the actual legal boundaries of the property. However, since a man`s home is his castle, disputes between neighbors can be controversial and emotional. Often, the only real winners are lawyers. In Martin, the applicants brought the action by way of tacit title within four years of the purchase of the property. While the plaintiffs prevailed, their action was rather risky. By agreeing with the location of the fence without confirming the location of the true land boundary, the applicants risked losing part of their property due to a prescribed easement.
A mandatory easement is the right to use another`s country. If the applicants had waited only one year to take legal action to confirm the boundary of the land, i.e. five years, the period during which a compulsory easement can come into being, the fence could have become a new land boundary. In Martin, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for silent ownership of their property (to settle a border line dispute) after discovering the fence between their property and a neighbor`s intervention in their property. The respondent, who asserted the agreed boundary doctrine, asserted that the fence was the new boundary of the land because there had never been any disagreement over the location of the fence. . . .