From: wen-king@myri.com (Wen-King Su)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Neighbor encroaches.
Date: 27 Jan 2004 14:55:36 -0800

In a previous article vze2k6pb@verizon.net (v) writes:
:
;On 27 Jan 2004 10:10:28 -0800, someone wrote:
:
;
:>:Right on.  Use must be open and notorious, i.e., the owner either knew
;>;or 'should have known' and that constitutes notice.
:>
;>Now you are making a sweeping generalization that is just as bad as the
:>one I have made...
;>
:>This is a case where not paying tax is the sole factor in denying an
;>adverse possession claim. 
:
;No, you are confusing the requirement for "A" with the requirement for
:"B".  Apparently, your state requires BOTH "A" and "B" (pays tax AND
;open & notorious).  Some states don't require "B" (pays tax) but still
:require "A".

I am only disputing his "Tax is not an issue.", a sentence that
somehow didn't make it through the editing process, but was clear
from my reply.

;BTW, what does CA do for Adverse Possession in boundary dispute
:situations, rather than separate parcels?

When there is a boundary dispute, there is no adverse possession.
Notice in the case I cited, the higher court noted that there is no
evidence that the true boundary was in dispute when the fence was
built, hence it is not a boundary dispute case.  The encroacher fenced
in the land that he knew isn't his which makes it for an adverse
possession claim.  The fact that he isn't paying tax on it is the sole
factor that denies the adverse possession claim or the award of an
easement having a similar effect.

;Are you saying that tax
;maps establish legal boundaries????  If its a one foot strip who can
:say what each is paying tax upon when there is a taxpayer on each side
;each claiming the strip and each paying taxes, do you go by the tax
:map, what if the tax map is ambiguous or wrong when compared to the
;deed or the fence?

The legal procedure here for adverse possession requires that you
notify the proper authority that you are going to pay tax for the
property you want to claim.  This pretty much makes it impossible for
adverse possession if the owner is still around and paying taxes on his
property.  Hence the majority of cases here are for prescriptive
easement, not adverse possession.