Facts

Plaintiffs purchased a single-family home in 2001. In late 2007, a neighbor advised plaintiffs that the wall separating plaintiffs' property from the neighbor's was actually encroaching on the neighbor's property by approximately 10 feet and demanded that plaintiffs share in the cost of tearing down the existing wall and erecting a new wall on the surveyed property line. The neighbor claimed she needed the additional space for an expansion of her house. After a few weeks of discussion between plaintiffs and the neighbor, which did not lead to a resolution, no further discussions took place.

In late summer of 2008, plaintiffs came home from work to find that the neighbor had torn down the wall separating the two properties with the intent of building a new wall on the surveyed property line.

Plaintiffs filed an action for quiet title on the basis of adverse possession and obtained a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from continuing the tear down of the existing wall and construction of a new wall.

Plaintiffs had exclusively used and possessed the disputed strip of land for the statutory five-year period. One of the required elements to establish adverse possession in California is the payment of taxes on the property being claimed by adverse possession. Thus, the primary issue in the case was whether taxes on the disputed parcel were paid by plaintiffs or by defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs argued that the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office normally assesses property tax solely on the basis of the market value of the property. Plaintiffs contended that they paid market value for their property, which included the disputed strip of land and that without the disputed parcel; the market value of the property would have been considerably lower.

Plaintiffs further argued that since the property tax was assessed on the market value of the property at the time plaintiffs purchased the property; the assessment necessarily included the value of the disputed parcel.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that defendants paid the property tax on the disputed parcel since the parcel was included in the legal description of the land owned by defendants and was not included in the legal description of the land owned by plaintiffs. Defendants further argued that the value of the property assessed by the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office was based in part on the grant deed, which included the legal description.

Result

Judgment for plaintiffs/cross-defendants in a quiet title action on the basis of adverse possession. Judgment for plaintiffs/cross-defendants on the cross-complaint for trespass and ejectment.

Other Information

The case involved a disputed strip of land occupied by plaintiffs, to which plaintiffs alleged they acquired title by adversely possessing the subject parcel for the statutory period. The court ruled that plaintiffs proved all the requisite elements for obtaining ownership of the property via adverse possession. FILING DATE: Sept. 8, 2008.