Madera School District v. Maggiorini

The Madera School District commenced an action to quiet its title to Lots 19 and 20 of Lankershim

After the property was acquired by the school district, it had the property surveyed. The surveyor testified that the survey established that a barbed wire fence which was erected as a barrier between the lots was within the east boundary of Lots 19 and 20. After discovering that an encroachment existed the school district brought suit to quiet title. Respondents defended the action on the ground that the fence which had been in existence for over 20 years indicated a boundary which had been established by agreement, and also claimed the property under the doctrine of adverse possession.

The trial court found that the fence indicated a boundary line which had been established between the property owned by the school district and respondent, and that the property was owned by the respondent. The court also found for respondent on the issue of adverse possession.

Judgment was entered that plaintiff take nothing by reason of its complaint and that defendant Walter Maggiorini have judgment upon his cross-complaint that the line of the fence be fixed as the boundary line between Lots 21 and 20.

Plaintiff, school district, has appealed from said judgment and attacks the finding of the court that there was an agreement and acquiescence as to the boundary which the fence indicated. The school district does not question the doctrine that a boundary may be established by acquiescence and agreement, but it claims that where the true line can be ascertained by reference to a recorded map there can be no doubt as to the true line and, therefore, the doctrine that a boundary may be determined by acquiescence may not be invoked. There is authority for the proposition that a boundary line is not unknown when descriptions in a deed are certain and the evidence is readily available from which the true boundary can be ascertained. (Williams v. Barnett, 135 Cal.App.2d 607 [ 287 P.2d 789 ] ; Garrett v. Cook, 89 Cal.App.2d 98 [ 200 P.2d 21 ].)

Some California cases contain language indicating that:

“. . . The fact that an accurate survey is possible is not conclusive of the question whether a doubt existed as to the location of a common boundary. Thus the doubt may arise from a believed uncertainty which may be proved by direct evidence or inferred from the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the agreement is deemed to have been made ■ . . ; and if in good faith the parties resolve their doubt by the practical location of the common boundary it will be considered the boundary called for by the deed.” (Mello v. Weaver, 36 Cal.2d 456 , 460 [ 224 P.2d 691 ].)

In Martin v. Lopes, 28 Cal.2d 618 [ 170 P.2d 881 ], the statement is made that in order to invoke the doctrine of agreed boundaries all that need be shown is lack of knowledge by both parties of where the line should be drawn.

As to the finding that the fence was agreed upon and acquiesced in as the boundary line there was evidence that the fence was in existence for over 40 years. The property was cultivated up to the fence by both adjoining landowners. We think this is sufficient evidence to support the finding.

In Hannah v. Pogue, 23 Cal.2d 849 [ 147 P.2d 572 ], the trial court held that the boundary between the land of plaintiff and defendant was an old fence. In affirming the judgment the Supreme Court said at pages 856 and 857:

“. . . It is the rule, however, that the court may infer that there was such an agreement ensuing from uncertainty or a dispute, from the long-standing acceptance of a fence as a boundary between the lands of two owners. [ Citing cases.]

“Mrs. Hannah testified that the fence was in existence when her husband acquired the property, that it remained standing down to the time of the trial, and that she believed

No other points raised require discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Van Dyke, P. J., and Peek, J., concurred.