Interesting recent A.P. Case...

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Hagman v. Meher Mount Corp., 215 Cal. App. 4th 82, April 3, 2013:

Larry Hagman prevailed in an adverse possession claim to about a half acre of land between the boundary and a fence line built in 1987.

He did not pay the property taxes on the half acre.

The Trial and Appellate Courts find he was did not have to meet the tax requirement because the adjoining landowner is a tax-exempt non-profit public benefit corporation which does not pay property taxes so therefore Larry didn't have to pay property taxes on the land to have a valid A.P. claim.

Also the Public Benefit corporation tried to claim that A.P. can't be made against it because it is a "public entity." The Appellate Court agrees with the trial court that it is not a public entity.

[Stephen Johnson]

Definitely interesting.

Did Hagman die before or after the final verdict?(Before: November 23, 2012)

Or is it some one else with the same name?

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

The opinion says he died before the final disposition of the case.

Hagman being involved is less interesting than the Court highlighting an exception to the tax payment requirement of A.P. In California.

[Stephen Johnson]

I find the first more interesting, but the second has considerably more impact on us.

[land butcher]

Meher Mount, 9902 Sulphur Mountain Road, Ojai, CA 93023

[Anthony Maffia]

http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_cas ... ssion.html

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

The official head note explains it better than I did:

"CA(8)(8) Adverse Possession § 3—Property Owned by Nonprofit Religious Organization—Payment of Taxes—Exemption from Requirement.—In a boundary dispute in which an adverse possessor sought to quiet title to an adjoining piece of land owned by a nonprofit religious organization that the adverse possessor had inadvertently fenced in and later improved, the judgment quieting title to the adverse possessor was proper, because a nonprofit religious organization's status as a public benefit corporation does not make it a public entity immune from adverse possession under Civ. Code, § 1007. A nonprofit religious organization's welfare exemption from property taxes (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 214) means that no such taxes were levied and assessed on the property during the years it qualified for the exemption. Under the plain and binding language of Code Civ. Proc., § 325, subd. (b), the adverse possessor is consequently excused from the usual requirement that he or she pay taxes on the disputed land for five years."

This opinion was made by the Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District. As I understand the system, Trial Courts outside the Second District can follow it but don't have to. A Superior Court in a different appellate district may deny an AP claim in similar circumstances. If the case is appealed then the Appellate Court can agree with the Second District or not. If not and the Supreme Court takes up the case they will either affirm the Second District's interpretation of CCP 325 or overrule them.

[Ric7308]

Ridden the mountain bike by that property many times. Gorgeous views.

[steffan]

This opinion was made by the Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District. As I understand the system, Trial Courts outside the Second District can follow it but don't have to. A Superior Court in a different appellate district may deny an AP claim in similar circumstances. If the case is appealed then the Appellate Court can agree with the Second District or not. If not and the Supreme Court takes up the case they will either affirm the Second District's interpretation of CCP 325 or overrule them.

Dave, I found your comment above curious as it is contrary to my understanding. Consider the following:

The CA Supreme Court stated in Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 (1962) that "Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state, and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court"

My understanding is that there is no geographical component to stare decisis under Ca law. Perhaps you're thinking of federal law, which operates differently in this regards.

[steffan]

This opinion was made by the Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District. As I understand the system, Trial Courts outside the Second District can follow it but don't have to. A Superior Court in a different appellate district may deny an AP claim in similar circumstances. If the case is appealed then the Appellate Court can agree with the Second District or not. If not and the Supreme Court takes up the case they will either affirm the Second District's interpretation of CCP 325 or overrule them.

Dave, I found your comment above curious as it is contrary to my understanding. Consider the following:

The CA Supreme Court stated in Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 (1962) that "Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state, and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court"

My understanding is that there is no geographical component to stare decisis under Ca law. Perhaps you're thinking of federal law, which operates differently in this regards.

[steffan]

This opinion was made by the Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District. As I understand the system, Trial Courts outside the Second District can follow it but don't have to. A Superior Court in a different appellate district may deny an AP claim in similar circumstances. If the case is appealed then the Appellate Court can agree with the Second District or not. If not and the Supreme Court takes up the case they will either affirm the Second District's interpretation of CCP 325 or overrule them.

Dave, I found your comment above curious as it is contrary to my understanding. Consider the following:

The CA Supreme Court stated in Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 (1962) that "Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state, and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court"

My understanding is that there is no geographical component to stare decisis under Ca law. Perhaps you're thinking of federal law, which operates differently in this regards.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Thanks for the reference.

I was going on what the Law librarian said in a legal research training class but maybe I misunderstood it.

Obviously your primary source is more authoritative.