Almost 22 years ago I got a call from a local art gallery owner who wanted to expand his building and needed a boundary survey.?ÿ I told him that I'd work up a proposal and get it to him, but he wanted a ballpark figure while he had me on the line.?ÿ Against my better judgment, I did a quick mental calculation and said that it'd probably be around $1,900.00.?ÿ He said okay, get me the proposal, and the next day I reviewed some records, came up with a figure of $2,200.00, and sent off a contract.?ÿ
I soon got a call back.?ÿ He was irate that I had raised the cost, accused me of trying to rip him off, and said that he could get it done cheaper by someone else.?ÿ I wished him good luck with the project, and figured that was that.?ÿ But about a year later I was retained by his neighbor to the north to do an ALTA in advance of a new condo project.?ÿ During the course of that survey I discovered that the new gallery building, which was almost complete, encroached up to 0.6' (it was a wedge-shaped encroachment) onto my client's parcel, and about 2.5' onto the neighbor to his west (a fraternity house).?ÿ It turned out that the gallery owner got private funding and decided to proceed without a survey and just used the fences.?ÿ ?ÿMonths of legal wrangling later, the gallery owner bought the wedge and paid the cost of a Lot Line Adjustment as well as the additional cost of upgrading the wall of the new condo building in order to meet fire code requirements.?ÿ When all of that dust settled, I wondered how long it would be before the fraternity discovered the encroachment on their side.
Yesterday I got the answer:?ÿ about 20 years.?ÿ The fraternity now plans to develop their site, and their surveyor discovered the encroachment.?ÿ The fraternity notified the gallery owner that they'll sell him the 140 s.f. encroachment for $20k and a Lot Line Adjustment.?ÿ The gallery owner has retained me to prepare Lot Line Adjustment documents.
?ÿ
Oh this is good. Just really, really good.
At least he saved $300 off your over-the-top quote.
Not that the gallery owner deserves a break, but has the subject of AP/Estoppel come up on the Frat House side??ÿ
AP in California is nearly impossible to attain, as one of the requirements is payment of taxes, and the tax parcel doesn't include the encroachment.?ÿ Estoppel doesn't pertain, as the frat only recently discovered the problem.
Beautiful!
Great story!!
requirements is payment of taxes
I'm a little vague on how that even works.?ÿ You occupy the same parcel for over 20 years and pay taxes on your assessed property.?ÿ You're not paying any additional taxes for the land you're occupying beyond your title piece.?ÿ But you're still fulfilling everything else.
Are you supposed to go to the clerk each year for 20 years and pay extra taxes for that piece??ÿ The deeded owner is going to probably do something about it then.
Wow! Talk about cold bowl of revenge....but its not really revenge so much as big ol bowl of crow.....
Nicely done and humble patience wins another round!
Ah sweet mystery of life.
@jph?ÿ
And can Californian tax maps be considered definitive down to the 2.5' level of precision? I consider Oregon's pretty good, but I wouldn't trust them at that level. Nevertheless, it is probably cheaper and less hassle for the gallery owner to fork over for the BLA than to go to court for an AP claim.?ÿ
@jph?ÿ
You are supposed to know that you have occupied land you don't hold the deed for and pay taxes for that land. It also works that way in Montana.?ÿ
Montana has a statute of limitations of 5 years for AP. That is the shortest I know of, but AP is difficult to win there.?ÿ
Wyoming has a 10 year limit and no expectation of paying taxes and it's "easy" to win an AP claim.
Every state is different.
I recently related the Wyoming case of a person who paid the back taxes and got a sheriff's deed to a Lot then lost the Lot to an AP claim even though he continued to pay property taxes each year.?ÿ
You are supposed to know that you have occupied land you don't hold the deed for and pay taxes for that land. It also works that way in Montana.?ÿ
Oregon's rule is that occupying land not described in your deed without knowing that it is not in your deed - so called "pure mistake" - is proof of the hostility of the occupation. This applies to our common law flavor of AP.?ÿ
Our statutory flavor of AP, which would apply to the time period in question, requires that the occupier have an "honest belief" which has an "objective basis" that the property was his at the time occupation starts and continues throughout the statutory period. I doubt that the gallery owner could make such a claim with a straight face, especially after the events 20-21 years ago on the other side of the property.
Like Dear Mother Nature, Karma is there but totally unpredictable. ?????ÿ
@jph?ÿ
In addition to paying the taxes, California requires that such payment and potential acquisition be "Open and Notorious". The landowner needs to be notified.
JA, PLS, SoCal
