Spear v. Smith

Citations: 161 Cal. App. 2d 744; 327 P.2d 36; 1958 Cal. App. LEXIS 1803Docket: Civ. 5817

Court: California Court of Appeal; July 1, 1958; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of Basil Spear et al. v. Mildred H. Smith, the plaintiffs sought to quiet their title to real property, while Mildred Smith countered with a cross-complaint to quiet title for her own property and named adjacent landowners as cross-defendants. Various cross-defendants, including Eremenko, the Mercers, and Virginia Mc. K. Smith, allowed the court to determine boundary issues without their direct involvement. The dispute primarily centered on the north boundary between Smith and the Spears, and the east boundary between Smith and Bertram Sturdivant.

The trial court concluded that the true boundaries of Mildred Smith's property were defined by actual possession, which had been open, notorious, adverse, and hostile for at least 30 years. The court noted that Smith and her predecessors had continuously paid taxes on the land and that visible markers, such as fences and roads, had established the boundaries for over three decades. It was determined that there was a historical agreement among predecessors regarding boundary locations, and that both Smith and the cross-defendants had acquiesced to these boundaries for many years. The court found that altering the boundaries would cause significant harm to Mildred Smith, thereby solidifying the established boundaries as legally recognized for her property.

The court appointed licensed surveyor Curtis M. Brown to prepare a plat establishing the boundary lines of Mildred Smith's property, which included an easement for ingress and egress for Virginia Mc. K. Smith and Bertram Sturdivant. The court determined that the plat accurately depicted the northerly boundary of Smith's property and the established boundary with Basil and Myrtle Spear, who were entitled to hold an easement. This plat was adopted and incorporated into the court's findings and judgment. The court's decision was primarily based on the agreement and long acquiescence of the parties regarding the true boundary lines. Case law indicates that boundary line agreements can be implied from long-standing occupancy, and actual designation of a boundary must be established through mutual recognition and consistent occupation for a sufficient period. Monuments, such as fences, can signify agreed boundaries. The case highlights that uncertainty regarding boundary locations can arise even when accurate surveys are possible, with long acquiescence being a decisive factor in determining boundaries. The dispute originated from Brown's 1946 survey, which indicated a different southwest corner location than a prior survey from 1934.

Brown initially established a property corner at a specific location identified by Butler but later admitted to a surveying error in 1946, reverting to a survey conducted by Ward in 1904. Mildred Smith acquired her property on July 31, 1943, and took possession that same day, having previously occupied it under a purchase agreement since 1941. She noted an old barbed wire fence along her property's southern boundary, which remained in the same position during the trial, and used this fence to contain livestock. The fence was widely accepted by both the Smiths and their neighbor, Virginia Mc. K. Smith, as the true boundary line.

The Smiths purchased their property from Forrest Flegal, whose brother Harold owned adjacent land, with no disputes over property lines. In 1945, Harold sold his land to Stephen Eremenko, who subsequently sold portions of it to Homer Spear and then to Basil Spear and his wife, the plaintiffs in the current matter. Prior to the Smiths' acquisition, an old fence ran from the northwest corner of their property eastward, extending to a rock wall, and was recognized by both Harold Flegal and the Smiths as the northern property boundary.

Mildred Smith was informed that this line was her property’s north boundary when she purchased it, and she occupied buildings south of this line without issue until the Spears erected a fence south of the Smith garage after acquiring their property in 1946. There was also a road running north from the southeast corner of the Smith property, which Mildred testified had been used as the boundary line with Sturdivant's property since 1941, with no disputes regarding her right to use it.

Bertha Walter, who leased the Smith property from 1938 to 1940, confirmed the consistency of the fence placements and recognized the old fences as the boundaries during her occupation, asserting that there was no controversy regarding the property lines at that time.

The trial court determined the true boundary of the Mildred Smith property based on evidence presented, designating specific markers: the eastern boundary follows the center line of the road, the southern boundary is defined by a barbed wire fence, the western boundary also follows a barbed wire fence, and the northern boundary is marked by a partial barbed wire fence leading to a rock wall, then to an iron stake and iron pipe at the northeast corner, as illustrated in the attached plat. To prevent future disputes regarding rights of way, the court established easements for ingress and egress for Virginia Mc. K. Smith, the Sturdivants, and the Spears over the respective properties, consistent with existing ground conditions as shown in the plat. The judgment, deemed logical and equitable, is supported by substantial evidence of long-term use and occupation by the Smiths within the agreed boundaries. Appellants argued against the findings, asserting the deeds should define property ownership and claiming there was no adverse possession. However, the court ruled based on the doctrine of agreed boundaries, rejecting the claim of a lack of dispute necessary for such an agreement, and affirmed that long acquiescence suffices. The evidence supported the judgment, establishing the traveled road as the boundary recognized by both parties. The court's findings and the amended cross-complaint sufficiently supported the decision, which was affirmed with concurrence from Judges Griffin and McCabe.