Where Should I Install The Fence?

Bryant v. Blevins

9 Cal. 4th 47

Held: When neighboring landowners are uncertain as to the true location of their common boundary line, they may establish that boundary by agreement, pursuant to a legal theory commonly referred to as the “agreed boundary” doctrine. This case presents the question whether a court should apply that doctrine to resolve a boundary dispute where available legal records provide a reasonable basis for fixing the boundary and the party relying upon the doctrine fails to establish that uncertainty as to the location of the true boundary led to an agreement between the landowners to create a boundary at an agreed-upon location.

The agreed-boundary doctrine constitutes a firmly established exception to the general rule that accords determinative legal effect to the description of land contained in a deed.  The agreed-boundary rule is applied when “coterminous” owners are uncertain of the true position of the common boundary described in their respective deeds, agree upon its true location, mark it upon the ground or build up to it, occupy on each side up to the place thus fixed and agree on this boundary line location for a period of time equal to the statute of limitations, or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position.  This agreed-boundary line then becomes, in law, the true line called for by the respective descriptions, regardless of the accuracy of the agreed location as it may appear by subsequent measurements.

The Holder of an Easement Cannot Fence it Off

Silacci v. Abramson

45 Cal. App. 4th 558

Held:  A prescriptive easement cannot have the effect of completely prohibiting the true owner from using his or her own land.

The plaintiff/property owners filed a complaint for declaratory relief against their neighbors, alleging that land fenced and used as a backyard by defendants actually belonged to the plaintiffs. The defendants cross-complained to quiet title to a prescriptive easement. The trial court found that defendants had an exclusive prescriptive easement over the fenced-in portion of plaintiffs’ property.

The court of appeal reversed the judgment holding that the trial court erred in finding that defendants had an exclusive prescriptive easement. The notion of an exclusive prescriptive easement, which completely prohibits the true owner from using his or her land, has no application to a simple backyard dispute. An easement is merely the right to use the land of another for a specific purpose, and an easement acquired by prescription is one acquired by adverse use for a certain period of time. An easement, however, is not an ownership interest, and it does not amount to a fee simple estate. To permit the defendants to acquire possession of plaintiffs’ land, and to call the acquisition an exclusive prescriptive easement, perverted the classical distinction in real property law between ownership and use. The trial court’s order amounted to giving plaintiffs’ land completely, without reservation, to defendants.