own both sides of it.
so if I do own both sides; can I put the line where ever I want to? If I sell one of the lots, does the buyer have to accept the line, even though the deed says something different?
Let's say I own lots 9 and 10 in a platted subdivision; I build a fence along the common line about 40' into lot 9. Lot 10 is developed, lot 9 only has a tennis court. Both of the lots are large and the fence does not make either lot non-conforming.
If someone buys lot 9, where's the line?
?ÿ
California has a case like that and the grantor won which is contrary to the usual rule that such things are construed against the grantor. I think it was about 5 feet.
@dave-karoly I thought of that case also when I read the above.?ÿ That CA case is where the grantor told the buyer that the fence line was boundary before the purchase.?ÿ A number of years later the grantee had his property surveyed based upon the deed and it showed the fence was encroaching.?ÿ I think the grantee and grantor got in a tiff a year or two later and the grantee removed the fence and the wall it was on top of that protected the pool.?ÿ The judge ruled that it was an established boundary since he was told where the boundary was prior to the purchase.?ÿ I believe other similar cases exist.?ÿ Maybe the judge accepted the wall and the fence as substantial improvements similar to Trinity Lutheran Case in San Rafael.
?ÿ
Are your still working on your book regarding California Boundary issues?
?ÿ
?ÿ
French v Brinkman:
??In the present case, however, special rules come into effect allowing the admission of parol evidence on the facts presented. Under plaintiffs' theory, they intended to sell, and defendants intended to buy, only that parcel north of the visible monuments, i.e., the wall and bathhouse; through mutual mistake the deed did not truly express their intention (Civ. Code, ?? 3399)[1]; therefore, the evidence was admissible in order that the deed might be reformed to conform to such true intent. (Martinelli v. Gabriel, 103 Cal. App.2d 818, 823 [3], 825 [6] [230 P.2d 444]; Merkle v. Merkle, 85 Cal. App. 87, 110-112 [10-12] [258 P. 969]; cf. McKevitt v. City of Sacramento, 55 Cal. App. 117, 128-129 [10] [203 P. 132].)?
Reading between the lines of French, Brinkman played the fool and the Court took care of him. It??s not uncommon in cases that could fall either way the Court puts the stupid party in their place.
Ernie v Trinity Lutheran Church is resolved as an agreed boundary case. The Church??s predecessor had a Survey done two decades before. Not mentioned in the case is Ernie??s deed erroneously appears to grant her 55 feet, she actually had the remainder of the middle of the block (about 54 feet). The church was Senior but the court didn??t realize that and resolved it as an agreed boundary for the same effect.
French v Brinkman:
"Ernie v Trinity Lutheran Church is resolved as an agreed boundary case. The Church??s predecessor had a Survey done two decades before. Not mentioned in the case is Ernie??s deed erroneously appears to grant her 55 feet, she actually had the remainder of the middle of the block (about 54 feet). The church was Senior but the court didn??t realize that and resolved it as an agreed boundary for the same effect."
Wasn't Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran also determined because of the substantial improvement that was built along the previously surveyed boundary line, being a large concrete wall that supported the walkway around the rectory and the wall had been in place over 5 years prior to Ernie filing any lawsuit??ÿ Didn't the agreement came about by Ernie sitting on his rights of letting the wall be constructed and waiting so long before having a survey conducted??ÿ I believe equity was also mentioned in the case.?ÿ
@la-stevens a fence, concrete sidewalk and rectory building. The case says they were built based on a survey.
In the east sometimes the best evidence of the boundary line is a fence constructed by God knows who.?ÿ ?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Back then everyone was taught how to measure.?ÿ Nowadays it's hard to trust fences.?ÿ I'll hold them old fences all day long
?ÿ