Taylor v. Brown
Filed 5/4/06 Taylor v. Brown CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Placer)
----
| DAVID C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Appellant, v. DENNIS W. BROWN et al., Defendants, Cross-Complainants and Respondents. | C050077
(Super. Ct. No. SCV16441)
|
This case involves a dispute between two neighbors whose property is divided by a fence, which stands several feet inside the legal boundary of plaintiff David C. Taylor's land, as shown by a survey Taylor commissioned. Taylor filed a complaint for declaratory relief and to quiet title. Taylor's neighbors, Dennis and Patricia Brown, who use the widest part of the disputed triangular section[1] as a driveway, cross-complained for declaratory relief and to quiet title on theories (among others) of adverse possession and agreed-upon boundary.[2]
The trial court found that the Browns had acquired all property on their side of the fence by adverse possession and that the fence constituted the agreed boundary between the two parcels.
Taylor appeals, contending the trial court erred in awarding a portion of his property to the Browns on theories of adverse possession and agreed boundary. We agree and shall reverse the judgment.
BACKGROUND
In accord with the usual rules on appeal, we state the facts in the manner most favorable to respondents. (Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 507, overruled on other grounds by Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, 696.)
At issue in this case is whether a fence between two lots on what is now Shamrock Lane in rural Lincoln, should be construed as the true boundary between the abutting parcels. Taylor owns lot 14; the Browns own lot 5.
In or about 1958, Harry Wildhaber (Wildhaber) and his
brother bought lot 5. Wildhaber testified at trial that the former owner told him in 1958 that the fence was the property line and he always â€
