Jack Balch, Marianne Balch v. Hiro Chang, Sophie Chang
Published: Sep. 16, 2003 | Result Date: Jun. 14, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: YC040631 Bench Decision – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Torrance
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
Plaintiff husband and wife, Jack and Marianne Balch, sued neighboring property owners, Hiro and Sohpie Chang, to quiet title based on adverse possession. The plaintiffs owned a home adjacent to a vacant lot owned by defendants in Rancho Palos Verdes in the late 1980s. The plaintiffs asked permission to clear weeds within 10 feet of the property line for aesthetic reasons and brush fire safety. The defendant's granted their permission. Subsequently, the plaintiffs removed the chain link fence between the two properties, cleared the brush on the entire one-half acre parcel owned by the defendants, bulldozed a narrow access road onto defendants' property, and leveled a small area where they planted 10 to 15 trees. The plaintiffs also gave permission to another neighboring owner for that third party to plant an extensive vegetable garden on a portion of defendants' property. Since the early 1990s, both plaintiffs and defendants paid property taxes on defendants' property, although plaintiffs paid prior in time for at lease six to seven years prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Based on plaintiffs' use of defendants' property, they claimed that they had acquired title based on adverse possession. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs' use of the property was with the knowledge, consent, and permission of defendants. Permission the defendant's gave in consideration for plaintiffs' paying property taxes on their property.
Settlement Discussions
According to the plaintiffs, there were various settlement discussions ranging from defendants buying plaintiffs' property for its fair market value, to plaintiffs buying defendants' property for $35,000. The defendants demanded $90,000 for their property.
Other Information
According to the plaintiffs, the trial court held that the scope of plaintiffs' use extended well beyond the initial permissive use and that the evidence did not support defendants' position that plaintiffs had paid property taxes as consideration for their use of the property.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390