Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Association v. McMullin

Defendant could not support his adverse possession claim with respect to a retaining wall he built on adjoining property that belonged to plaintiff homeowners’ association.  Neither party requested a statement of decision following a six-day court trial, so the doctrine of implied findings applied.  Though the basic facts may have been undisputed, the implied findings…

Walters v. Boosinger

The relevant limitations period on a quiet title claim is governed by underlying basis of the claim; in this case, the gravamen of the quiet title claim was that defendant induced her erstwhile boyfriend to sign title transfer documents while inebriated, so the three-year limitations period applicable to fraud claims applied.  Walters’s father, Randy, held…

Friends of the Hastain Trail v. Coldwater

Plaintiffs did not allege facts sufficient to show that defendant landowners impliedly dedicated a fire road over their land to public use, since fire roads are only temporary easements and do not alert the landowner to any risk that they could be surrendering property rights, and there was insufficient evidence that the road was constantly…

Friends of Martin’s Beach v. Martin’s Beach 1, LLC

To prove a common law dedication, plaintiff need only show the owner’s intent to dedicate the property to public use and the public’s acceptance of the dedication; no written conveyance or acceptance by a public entity is required.  Cal. Const., art. X, sec. 4, declares that riparian owners must permit the state a right of…

Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills

Because a property owner has no right to unobstructed views, the owner cannot sue a city in inverse condemnation for planting trees that block views even if the loss of views lowers the value of the property.  A property owner has no right to unobstructed views.  Hence, he has no inverse condemnation action against a…

Diocese of San Joaquin v. Gunner

Bishop of Episcopalian diocese lacked authority to amend the canons of the corporation sole in whose name the diocese’s property was held, so transfers of diocese property which the bishop made pursuant to his purported amendments were invalid.  In a later chapter of the dispute which sparked Schofield v. Superior Court (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 154,…