Legal Opinion
Kapner v. MEADOWLARK RANCH ASSN.
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 17, 2004No. B163525PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GILBERT, P. J.
A property owner claims a prescriptive easement for improvements that he encloses on a parcel held in common with other owners. Such a claim is in the nature of adverse possession. Here we hold, among other things, that adverse possession may not masquerade as a prescriptive easement.
We affirm the trial court’s order requiring the property owner to sign an encroachment agreement or remove the encroachment.
FACTS
In 1960, Bryant E. Myers owned Meadowlark Ranch, a 437-acre parcel in Santa Ynez, California. In June of 1960, Myers recorded a declaration of protective covenants…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hirshfield v. SchwartzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Wilson v. Interlake Steel Co.California Supreme Court · 1982
- Gilardi v. HallamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Mehdizadeh v. MincerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Blackmore v. PowellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- McBride v. Smith, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Hansen v. Sandridge Partners, L.P., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Hansen v. Sandridge PartnersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.