Interesting case from Ca regarding a defense based on the doctrine of agreed boundaries:
Gee whiz, must be neighbors here in Paso Robles, CA?
Typical California case. The CA courts have firmly merged two boundary doctrines into one making it nearly impossible to prove either doctrine. This case is a typical repeat of the problems associated with boundary agreements in CA.
There are three types of boundary agreements: written, oral, and implied. Same as contract law (in fact they are rooted in contract law). Most of us (and the courts) have no problem with a written agreement. They're easy to prove and easy to survey.
Oral agreements, historically (and still in most jurisdictions) requires that the parties have an uncertainty or disagreement over the boundary location. If they know or mutually accept the location of their boundary, there is no need for an agreement in the first place. And, if they know where the boundary is, they can't agree that it's somewhere else. Both are illogical and illegal. They'd have to convey property to create a new boundary other than the known location (see, statute of frauds).
Implied agreements, historically (and still in most jurisdictions) happen when something (usually the fence) has been mutually recognized, accepted and treated as the boundary for a long period of time (typically 20 years but varies), the parties are bound by their "implied" agreement. Usually its a case where no one knows who built the fence or why it's located where it is, as the fence builders are dead and buried. (You can't easily dig up the bones of the past and the court won't require it (except in CA and a few other states (like TX))).
CA, by muddling the two agreement types together, ends up with a hybrid doctrine that goes something like this:
In order to prove a boundary established by oral agreement (as in this case), you must prove that there was an uncertainty or dispute at the time the fence was constructed and that the parties negotiated a settlement resulting in the compromise line, then constructed a fence along that line, then ... have to wait for 20 years (actually I believe CA is only 7 yrs) in order for their oral agreement to be upheld. (The historic doctrine of oral agreements has no time element.)
In order to prove a boundary established by implied agreement, the parties must prove that at the time the fence was constructed there was a disagreement or uncertainty. Remember, however, in this situation, we don't know who built the fence or why it was constructed where is was because they're DEAD (or unknown or don't remember). Not good enough for CA courts. You must find a way to resurrect the bones and inquire as to the answers for these vital questions, or, you loose.
The death knell tolls in CA.
JBS
The CA courts have firmly merged two boundary doctrines into one making it nearly impossible to prove either doctrine.
I like that, it helps stabilize the boundary's and discourages an attempt to make adverse claims, regardless of the circumstances. Yet still allows other resolutions either be court order or an exchange of deeds, the owners desire a deed transfer or heaven forbid, correct the occupation to where it probably was located when to the original creation documents defined the intended location of the common boundary. Galloping Boundary Lines caused by ignorance or an intimidating strong arm method of some type, are to be discouraged. Never liked legalized theft, of any type, old laws and attitudes almost always need changing over time or the law only serves itself and not those it was intended or claims to serve.
jud
> Galloping Boundary Lines caused by ignorance or an intimidating strong arm method of some type, are to be discouraged.
Yeah, anyone who has seen what fenceline surveying commonly does to land boundaries will recognize that it makes an incredible mess of what was once typically not. In its most extreme form, you end up with descriptions following every turn and bend in some pasture fence strung from tree to tree, with a PI every thirty feet or so.
