Boundary Line Agreement California

In court, the court found that the fence was not the border according to the doctrine of the border by agreement, and significantly that the accused would not suffer a « significant loss » if the fence was moved to the actual border. The court then found that the applicants are entitled to silent titles on the basis of the actual border. The definition of a controversial border includes a complex right in California. When a border dispute is brought to light, it is wise for an involved property owner to consult an experienced real estate lawyer who has already looked into border disputes. In California, the law involved in border disputes is extremely complex and contained in both state and state jurisprudence (judges or common law). Although Bryant`s evidence was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Agreed-Boundary Doctrine, the California Supreme Court rejected a significant restriction on the Agreed-Boundary Doctrine. In particular, the Tribunal rejected the allegation that the Agreed Boundary doctrine could only apply in cases where legal descriptions do not determine where the true limit lies. (Bryant at 54) The Court found that the application of such a restriction would disrupt long-term agreements on the application of the Agreed Boundary doctrine. However, if the parties are unable to negotiate a border agreement, they may end up in court in a tacit title trial or other type of ownership action.

In one way or another, it is essential to obtain competent legal assistance for both negotiations and disputes. California`s border law dictates the types of evidence to be considered in determining a true line of ownership and the relative strength of different types of evidence. The real estate owner`s lawyer may give his opinion on such evidence and, if necessary, will review and gather other investigations, including the conduct of historical research on titles and surveys and the commissioning of new professional surveys. The teaching of the border by agreement requires that there be (1) uncertainty as to the true border, (2) an agreement between the co-owners that determines the line and (3) acceptance and tolerance in line for a period corresponding to the statute of limitations, or in such circumstances that a significant loss would be caused by a change of position. Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church (1959) 51 Ca.2d 702, 707; Bryant v. Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.4th 47. Martin Court, while not questioning the validity of the doctrine, indicated that it should not be applied if there is no evidence that neighbouring owners have entered into an agreement that has left a boundary within which the boundary can be established on the basis of a document or other legal document.