California Surveyors Forums

Thanks for the post. I found it routine and consistent with other AP cases that I have read. What points did you find of interest?

That's interesting. I read a law review article advocating that the purchase price should be used to support the idea it is based on visible improvements and that is what taxes are paid on. I see they reverse and continue the presumption that taxes are paid on the deed description. At this point the presumption would be hard to overcome since most property hasn't been visually assessed since 1975.

There are two surveys on file. The Respondent's property was surveyed in 1995 so don't how they managed to build their patio over the line like that.

Dave,

I looked up the addresses and previous surveys as well. I can only think that the owner in 1995 had the property surveyed and then ignored the results and built the patio, or that the owner already had the patio there and wanted to do something else, had it surveyed and found out he was encroaching and ignored it without making additional improvements, then sold.

How long has it been that AP claims fail because taxes were not paid? This is another one and even though the lower court bought the flim flam. it seems to me that there is no evidence that taxes were paid upon anything outside the same legal description that had been used for years for assessment purposes.

Next time submit a new description for tax purposes that embraces the entirety of the encroaching improvements.

It seems to me that they tried to buy the land with the encroaching improvements and they were rebuffed and then they tried to steal it through legal wrangling. The court probably picked up on this. I wonder why there is not a claim against the seller and the seller's Realtor. The presumption I have been told is that improvements were permitted. How is it that the local agency permitted improvements that were clearly out of conformance with title lines?

Thanks for the clarification. I really appreciate your posts on cases.

I think the LA Lawyer article is the one I read.

The court's reasoning here seems to be the buyer can't magically stand in the shoes of the tax assessor which seems reasonable. And failing to get the certified tax records is just another nail in the coffin.