A fence separated the 2 properties for decades. Both property owners presumed it was the correct boundary between the properties. There was never a dispute until a survey were done. Then neighbor found that 15% of their property was on the wrong side of the fence. A law suit ensued and the parties argued the doctrine of agreed boundary.

To have a binding boundary agreement, the following must exist: “[1] an uncertainty as to the true boundary line, [2] an agreement [to resolve a dispute] between the coterminous owners fixing the line, and [3] acceptance and acquiescence in the line so fixed for a period equal to the statute of limitations or under such circumstances that substantial loss would be caused by a change of its position.” The court held that acquiescence is not sufficient to prove an agreed boundary. There must be evidence of an actual agreement to resolve a dispute. In the Martin case, there was no agreement resolving the dispute. The court also cautioned against a broad application of the Boundary by Agreement doctrine.

Martin v. Van Bergen

(2nd Dist., 2012) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (citing: Bryant v. Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.4th 47).

For more information contact David DiJuliomailto:rdj@dijuliolaw.com.

DiJulio Law Group: Los Angeles real estate attorneys with more than 35 years of experience. Call 888-519-1613 or emal rdj@dijuliolaw.com.

DiJulio Law Group