"Hawthorne testified he had received a copy of the subdivision map setting forth the boundary locations and he understood a survey would be the most accurate way to locate the property markers, but he could not afford one."
I understand why the court would rule that Hoggatt owns to the easily ascertainable lot line per the survey and I understand why the new extension of the fence Pezdek built angling toward Hoggatt should be removed, but the part I have trouble with is requiring Pezdek to remove or pay to remove the fence that he and Hoggatt's predecessor, Hawthorne, agreed to build on the line as pointed out by Webber, even though it turned out Webber was wrong. I don't think the old fence became the boundary by the agreed-boundary doctrine, at least according to California standards, but it seems like it possibly should be allowed to remain where it is on Hoggatt's property because the property owners agreed to build it there.
I guess because they had agreed to place the fence on the boundary and in order to save money on a survey, they asked a non-surveyor to determine the boundary, who turned out to be wrong, then their agreement to place the fence on the boundary allows the court to order the fence moved to the easily locatable boundary as described in the records (?)