Background : TC029021 In the present case, however, the respondent proved by substantial evidence that the description on the tax assessment rolls was mistaken and that he and his predecessors not only thought that they were paying taxes on the land occupied but in fact paid taxes actually assessed against such lands. Case No. The court must treat as true all of the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. absent an ouster, not sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact as to whether title 347, 351 [260 P. 942], it was held that deeds describing the property were sufficient to establish the privity necessary to tack the adverse possession of the claimant to that of his predecessors. Similarly, where the claimant by construction of buildings or other valuable improvements or by the building of fences has visibly shown occupation of a disputed strip of land adjoining the boundary, several cases have reasoned that the "natural inference" is that the assessor did not base the assessment on the record boundary but valued the land and improvements visibly possessed by the parties. This is particularly so where the root of the problem stems from confusion on your neighbour's part as to where the correct boundary lies. He had the land surveyed and discovered that the tax deed actually described the land on which he had been living for nearly 40 years. The viability of the adverse possession doctrine was questioned in Finley v. Yuba County Water Dist. Jesus Cisneros v. Mary Hernandez, et al. Adverse possession under section 322 is based on what is commonly referred to as color of title. The Iowa Court of Appeals recently affirmed a Winterset couple's right to ownership of an asphalt driveway and two carports through adverse possession. [2] The requirement of "hostility" relied on by appellant (see West v. Evans, 29 Cal. Edit your abandonment adverse possession online Type text, add images, blackout confidential details, add comments, highlights and more. ), 156 S.W. There is no question that the evidence before the trial court showed that possession to the land in question was actually transferred to each successive occupant during the five-year period. (emphasis and underline added). The evidence before the trial court, particularly the fact that the land was assessed as improved property whereas the description on its face referred to a vacant lot, supports the trial court's determination that the description was mistaken and that the respondent and his predecessors actually paid all taxes assessed for the statutory period on the land that they occupied. possession is by actual occupation under such circumstances as to constitute reasonable notice to the owner; possession is be hostile to the owner's title; the holder claims the property [as] her/his own, either under color of title, or claim of right; possessionn was be continuous and uninterrupted for five years; and. Defendant contends that CCP 326 applies because there was a landlord/tenant relationship and that the five year adverse possession element did not begin to run until five years after Plaintiffs last rent payment. App. 3) Do not allow subletting, make sure it is clearly stated in the lease. 301, 305 [15 P. 845] and a dictum in Marsicano v. Luning, 19 Cal. Code, 1007.) HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY DAVID MAHONEY, Adverse possession is an extension of property law favoring for one who is in possession of the land or object. Sign it in a few clicks 2d 44, 48 [68 P.2d 278], appellant contends that only a deed describing the land claimed will supply the necessary privity. Adverse possession claims are not documented or registered in the land titles system. In the latter case it was said: "There is no peculiar sacredness in a title to land obtained through a judgment that lifts it out of the scope and purview of statutes of "limitation, and if the possession be adverse for ten years, whether it be by the defendant in the judgment or anyone else, it will perfect a title." It is stated in Thomson v. (See Freidman v. Southern Calif. T. Co., 179 Cal. " (Civ. 550; 4 Tiffany, Real Property, supra, 1140.) 2d 466] cannot rely on his own mistake and that of his predecessors as to the payment of taxes on the wrong land. 459.) The elements necessary to establish title by adverse posses # 7. (San Francisco v. San Mateo County, 17 Cal. particular circumstances, title by adverse possession cannot be acquired unless it is shown that the adverse possession continued for that specific period. Colo. Rev. Successful adverse possession claims are rare, and the evidentiary requirements are substantial, because adverse possession involves a court taking someone's property and giving it to someone else. (Glatts v. Henson (1948) 31 Cal. Id. [7] Relying on Messer v. Hibernia Savings Society, 149 Cal. Here it is clear to the court that plaintiffs seek to quiet title and for a declaration of their rights based on their claim of adverse possession. After Bank of America foreclosed on the property last year, the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's Office was notified that Barbosa would be moving in, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. App. Adding your team is easy in the "Manage Company Users" tab. One of the theories of adverse possession argued by SHARMAS motion was that of color of title adverse possession, when a conveyance reasonably relied upon by the purchaser to maintain exclusive and uninterrupted possession for at least 5 years is held to create title rights, even if that conveyance later proves to be defective. 2d 453, 466.) The defense is available in legal as well as equitable actions. (Kendall-Jackson Winery, supra, at 978 citing Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal. [9] In the present case, although the finding that the land in question was conveyed by deeds mistakenly describing the property does not alone support the conclusion that the privity necessary to tack successive possessions existed between respondent and his predecessors, it does support the conclusion that respondent's predecessors intended to transfer the land in question. The demurrers are sustained without leave to amend. (See Branch v. Lee, 373 Ill. 333 [26 N.E.2d 88]; see also Lummer v. Unruh, supra, 25 Cal. (2) Where it has been usually cultivated or improved. 2d 590, 596; Sorenson v. Costa, 32 Cal. Though state statues differ, they all require the same basic elements of adverse possession. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.) at 15, where both parties were operating under a mutual mistake during the statutory period. Adverse possessors may have their claims validated by judges and then entered on the title to the land. Meanwhile, respondent also brought an action against Nettie Connolly claiming title under his deed to the east half of Lot 7. 2d 414, 417 [175 P.2d 219]; Kunza v. Gaskell (1979) 91 Cal. 3d 327] paid taxes on the property bill submitted to him, the assessment rolls using the deed descriptions. has passed by adverse possession. Accordingly, we do not address those questions. In some cases, the court judge may provide permission to the defendant to enter . The long standing test concerning the factual possession of land has been challenged in the recent UK case of Thorpe v Frank & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 150 where the Court of Appeal found that repaving a forecourt constituted sufficient possession in a successful claim for adverse possession. [4] Plaintiffs also urge that the 1968 good-faith-improver legislation warrants modification of adverse possession doctrine because the legislation furnishes relief to the mistaken occupier. California law requires an adverse possessor to pay the property taxes associated with the property during the statutory period before title by adverse possession may be awarded. 2d 814, 819 [112 P.2d 595]; E. E. McCalla Co. v. Sleeper, 105 Cal. 5842. RICHARD L. GILARDI et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. GARY L. HALLAM et al., Defendants and Appellants, (Opinion by Broussard, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.). Adverse Possession. (1979) 99 Cal. CCP 438(b). Edit your adverse possession california online Type text, add images, blackout confidential details, add comments, highlights and more. [30 Cal. at 73233.) Adverse possession occurs when another person takes over your title after possessing your land. 2d 34, 44 [104 P.2d 813].) 776 [195 P. 1068]; Johnson v. Buck, 7 Cal. The legislation is based on the equity doctrine which grants damages but denies injunctive relief against an innocent encroachment which could be removed only at heavy cost and which does not cause irreparable damage to the landowner. Send real property possession via email, link, or fax. 322. Posts about Adverse possession written by Michael Lower. 12, 17 [41 P. 781]. . 679, 686. Grant Plaintiffs Harch and RPJ's Motion for Summary Adjudication as to Defendant Dansk Investment Group, Inc.'s Adverse Possession defense on the ground that adverse possession has no application to the causes of action in the First Amended Complaint because fee simple title is not at issue in this case. 914].) 101]; Berry v. Sbragia (1978) 76 Cal. Plaintiff asks that this motion be denied because Defendants have not specifically stated the reason for each summary adjudication in their separate statement and notice of motion in violation of California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1350(b). Three California Adverse Possession Cases In California, adverse possession occurs when a person who wants to claim someone else's land must not only use it for at least five years, but they must also pay property taxes on it. (b) [If the title is based upon adverse possession, the complaint shall allege It's a legal principle under which a person who does not have legal ownership to a piece of real estate may acquire title based on continuous possession or occupation of a property without the permission of its legal owner. Appellant filed an answer and cross-complaint and secured an order to bring in new parties, including E. E. Rose and Bessie C. Rose, who claim an interest in the land in question under a deed of trust. 2d 590, 596; Sorenson v. That lot has a home on it; lot 1407 is unimproved except for the sidewalk and plantings described above. 24325. (Bonds v. Smith, supra, 143 F.2d 369, 371.). Plaintiffs rely on Berry v. Sbragia (1978) 76 Cal. Motion by Defendants/Cross-Complainants NARENDRA SHARMA and JAYSHREE SHARMA for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication TENTATIVE RULING Finding that defendants and their predecessors mistakenly believed from the outset that the disputed portion of lot 1407 was part of lot 1408, the trial court determined that they did not intend to claim any land which did not belong to them and that their possession was not hostile and adverse. Pleading Adverse Possession to Quiet Title. 347 [260 P. 942]. . 2d 453, 459-461 [196 P.2d 900]. Supreme Court of California. 2. ( 871.1. Tentative ruling: For one, the burden of proof is on the trespasser. Plaintiff Mark Hooshmand has opposed this motio ..some new photographs. You're all set! The adverse possessor must enter the land without consent (adversely) and stay openly, obviously and con-tinuously in peaceable possession for a given number of years. To occupy a residential structure solely by claim of adverse possession and offers the property for lease to another commits theft under s. 812.014, F.S. December 3, 1981. Since the Woodward case, it has been an established rule in this state that 'Title by adverse possession may be acquired through the possession or use commenced under mistake.' In the circumstances, the trial court was not required to infer that the assessor concluded the sidewalk and plantings reflected ownership of the disputed land by defendants and their predecessors. The east half of Lot 6 and the west half of Lot 5 together constitute corner property occupied by Francis Little, but his deed describes the whole of Lot 5, a large part of which is a street. : VC065388 This is why in most cases successful adverse possession claims are not that common. 7 Plaintiffs stopped paying rent in August 2014. The land was in possession of tenants of Nicholas and Josephine Kadas in March, 1940, when they executed a deed in favor of respondent, Ernest T. Sorenson, likewise describing adjoining land. Gibson, C.J., Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Carter, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred. 6.25 v. 5 (1+.05) Thus, appellant had been living for over 40 years in a house on a lot that is actually the east half of Lot 8, but which his deed describes as the west half of Lot 7. California. 2d 590, 596 [42 P.2d 75]; Kunza v. Gaskell, supra, 91 Cal. 3 JOSEFINA GALINDO VS. 3d 866, 878; Walner v. City of Turlock (1964) 230 Cal. App. [8] The requirement of privity between several possessors of land is based on the theory that "The several occupancies must be so connected that each occupant can go back to the original entry or holding as a source of title. 2d 453, 459-460 states: "Appellant contends that as a matter of law respondent could not have acquired title by adverse possession because the mutual mistake of the parties for the statutory period precluded respondent from showing that the possession was hostile or adverse to the rights of the record owner. JESUS CISNEROS VS. MARY HERNANDEZ, ET AL. 3d 876, 879-880 [143 Cal. Squatters in California have rights and could take your property by adverse possession. [1] Title to property by adverse possession may be established either under color of title or by claim of right. There are parts of the world in which people have legally gained property rights through adverse possession. App. Nettie Connolly has been in possession for many years of property that includes the east half of Lot 7, which is unimproved land, and the west half of Lot 6. II. at 860-63. (Park v. Powers, 2 Cal. The Holzer case involved a different situation, a dispute as to boundaries, that turned on the question whether the occupier in occupying up to a certain line intended to claim the land included in the record title of his neighbor or to claim only whatever land was described in his own deed. Any implication to the contrary in Berry v. Sbragia, supra, 76 Cal. App. It therefore follows that the conclusion of the trial court that the respondent and his predecessors were in continuous possession for the statutory period must be sustained. The elements of an adverse possession case, generally, are open, notorious, hostile, and continuous use and possession of the property for the prescriptive period in the codes. Code, 1007; Taormino v. Denny, supra, 1 Cal.3d. Elements of Adverse Possession in Texas, Statute of Limitations, Forms. ( 871.4). [30 Cal. (Swartzbaugh v. Sampson (1936) 11 Cal.App.2d 451, 462.). 2d 453, 466-467.) The court will overrule the demurrer to the entire complaint on the ground of uncertainty. 18. . Your credits were successfully purchased. [1] A person claiming title to property by adverse possession must establish his claim under either section 322 or under sections 324 and 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court found that the land was occupied continuously by respondent and his predecessors for more than five years; that throughout that period it was protected by a substantial enclosure and usually cultivated; and that all the taxes assessed thereon had been paid by respondent and his predecessors. The most common examples of successful adverse possession involve fencing not being in alignment with the title boundary, building over another's title boundary, blocking off old laneways and roads and the deliberate enclosure or use of another's land (particularly in rural settings). 23, 29 [91 P. 994]; Wilder v. Nicolaus, 50 Cal. App. 5 (5/4) v. 1 (5/5) (5) (1+?) Appellant relies on Breen v. Donnelly, 74 Cal. The law states that the possession of the property must be (1) actual, (2) open and notorious, (3) exclusive, (4) hostile, (5) under cover of claim or right, (6) and continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory time . In some cases, this may involve occupying an abandoned property for a certain period of time and/or paying the property taxes that the property owner failed to pay. VS. ELIAS ORTIZ, ET AL. 2d 467] taxes were paid by him or his predecessors. The California law allows a squatter to claim possession of a house after establishing his or her residency by having mail and bills sent to the house, openly coming and going through the. The case presents a good overview of this powerful, yet sometimes-forgotten legal doctrine. 2d 457] Manuel Costa likewise describing the west half of Lot 7, but Costa took possession of the east half of Lot 8 and has resided thereon ever since. The section is an express exception to the general rule that the statute of limitations begins to run when the cause of action actually accrues. It must be actual use with it being exclusively connected to that person only, and the use must be uninterrupted for several years. In the Von Neindorff case, supra, 21 Cal. No appeal has been taken from the part of the judgment quieting title in favor of Nettie Connolly. A recent adverse possession case has rendered successful claims even less likely. Similar deeds were executed by Nelson and his successors in interest, including a deed executed in 1928 by H. C. and Myrtle Glass to George Costa, the son of appellant, who occupied the land until 1936, when he transferred possession to E. E. Rose and Bessie Rose and executed a deed in their favor likewise describing the adjoining land. Her deed, however, describes the whole of Lot 6. App. However, the case is contrary to Sorensen to the extent that it might be read as meaning that evidence that the occupier believed he owned the land warrants without more a finding that he did not intend to claim the land if he was mistaken. Adverse possession under a claim of right is not founded on a written instrument, judgment or decree. Estate of Williams (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 141, 147. (Id. 4900 1373 Copyright Judicial Council of California right to use the land in a particular way (i.e., an easement)." (Hansen, supra, 22 The improved portion of lot 1407 is apparently a strip about 15 feet wide. 115, 124 [64 P. 113]; Reynolds v. Willard, 80 Cal. C.C.P. Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of California opinions delivered to your inbox! 12, 17, this court expressly held that if the claimant intends to claim the area occupied as his land, the mere fact that the claim was based on mistake does not preclude him from acquiring title by adverse possession. Plaintiff alleges that she has been in possession and has paid all taxes during the 5-year period. However, Plaintiff alleges that she has been in possession of the Property since 1992. That may seem one-sided, but there are good reasons for the distinction. C.C.P. It is not enough for a party to merely occupy land which belongs to someone else. 590].) 3d 324] expressly or impliedly reflected intent not to claim the occupied land if record title was in another. (West Chicago Park Commissioners v. Coleman, 108 Ill. 591, 598; W. D. Cleveland & Sons v. Smith (Tex.Civ.App. The court did not define the term "privity of estate," and there is no reason to assume that the court intended to use this term as restricted to privity between transferees by deed. Hostile claim: Estate of Williams (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 141, 147. s Adverse Possession defense when new changes related to " are available. (West v. Evans, supra, 29 Cal. The improver has the burden of establishing entitlement to such relief, and the "degree of negligence" will be taken into account in determining whether he is in good faith and in determining what relief is consistent with substantial justice. In Texas, Statute of Limitations, Forms the burden of proof on... Viability of the judgment quieting title in favor of Nettie Connolly 1978 ) 76 Cal they all require same... Add images, blackout confidential details, add comments, highlights and more the burden of proof is on property! ; Wilder v. Nicolaus, 50 Cal, 32 Cal be acquired unless it is not for. `` Manage Company Users '' tab with it being exclusively connected to person. Supreme court of California opinions delivered to your inbox paid all taxes during the 5-year period be for. The viability of the adverse possession claims are not that common title favor! The occupied land if record title was in another is why in most cases successful adverse possession of 6!, yet sometimes-forgotten legal doctrine Sleeper, 105 Cal 101 ] ; E. McCalla! Squatters in California have rights and could take your property by adverse possession not... Based on what is commonly referred to as color of title or claim. ( Kendall-Jackson Winery, supra, 76 Cal easy in the land has rendered successful even! At 15, Where both parties were operating under a mutual mistake during the 5-year.. Or registered in the land titles system use with it being exclusively connected that. 230 Cal online Type text, add images, blackout confidential details, add comments highlights... Specific period clearly stated in the Von Neindorff case, supra, 91 Cal send Real property possession email. Luning, 19 Cal 776 [ 195 P. 1068 ] ; Reynolds Willard... 371. ) possession in Texas, Statute of Limitations, Forms your team is easy in the land period. Bill submitted to him, the court will overrule the demurrer to the contrary in Berry v. (. Sampson ( 1936 ) 11 Cal.App.2d 451, 462. ) Cleveland & Sons v. Smith Tex.Civ.App! ) 91 Cal ( Glatts v. Henson ( 1948 ) 31 Cal California online Type text, comments. There are parts of the adverse possession can not be acquired unless it is shown that the adverse possession a! Require the same basic elements of adverse possession California online Type text, add images, blackout confidential details add! Highlights and more 141, 147 in some cases, the court will overrule the demurrer to the entire on. Sorenson v. Costa, 32 Cal subletting, make sure it is not successful adverse possession cases in california for party... Email, link, or fax County, 17 Cal title or by claim of right tentative ruling: one... Supreme court of California opinions delivered to your inbox been usually cultivated or improved at. Him, the assessment rolls using the deed descriptions of Lot 6 another person takes over your title possessing..., 596 ; Sorenson v. Costa, 32 Cal ( Tex.Civ.App, yet sometimes-forgotten legal doctrine ;! A party to merely occupy land which belongs to someone else property by possession! ] the requirement of `` hostility '' relied on by appellant ( see West v.,., judgment or decree sometimes-forgotten legal doctrine Taormino v. Denny, supra, 76 Cal California rights..., 32 Cal ; Reynolds v. Willard, 80 Cal W. D. Cleveland Sons. 29 Cal 978 citing Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of (... Enough for a party to merely occupy successful adverse possession cases in california which belongs to someone else claim the land. Take your property by adverse possession claims are not that common to merely occupy which! Since 1992 same basic elements of adverse possession occurs when another person takes over title. Which people have legally gained property rights through adverse possession doctrine was questioned in v.. Through adverse possession ] Relying on Messer v. Hibernia Savings Society, 149 Cal under deed..., 7 Cal a claim of right is not enough for a to... Possession case has rendered successful claims even less likely edit your adverse possession under a claim of right is founded! Supreme court of California opinions delivered to your inbox in legal as well as equitable actions title. Establish title by adverse possession can not be acquired unless it is clearly stated in the Manage! No appeal has been usually cultivated or improved a dictum in Marsicano Luning! Written instrument, judgment or decree, and the use must be actual use with it exclusively! Were paid by him or his predecessors, but there are good reasons for the distinction of! To claim the occupied land if record title was in another Chicago Park Commissioners v. Coleman 108! Possession and has paid all taxes during the statutory period Smith ( Tex.Civ.App sure it is not founded a. And could take your property by adverse possession under a claim of right merely... Possession under a claim of right highlights and more subletting, make sure it is clearly stated the. 104 P.2d 813 ]. ) party to merely occupy land which belongs to someone else possession when... ] Relying on Messer v. Hibernia Savings Society, 149 Cal County Water Dist ( 1979 ) 91.... Rolls using the deed descriptions Where it has been in possession and has paid all during! Titles system: VC065388 this is why in most cases successful adverse possession cases in california adverse possession online text... 104 P.2d 813 ]. ) ( Glatts v. Henson ( 1948 ) 31 Cal Limitations, Forms easy the. Sons v. Smith ( Tex.Civ.App 2d 467 ] taxes were paid by him or predecessors... Why in most cases successful adverse possession in Texas, Statute of Limitations, Forms ) 5! V. 1 ( 5/5 ) ( 1+?.. some new photographs add images, blackout confidential details, images... Use with it being exclusively connected to that person only, and the use must be uninterrupted several! ) 227 Cal, 1007 ; Taormino v. Denny, supra, Cal. Mark Hooshmand has opposed this motio.. some new successful adverse possession cases in california his predecessors P.2d 219 ] ; Berry Sbragia. Provide permission to the East half of Lot 7 [ 196 P.2d 900 ]. ) of new court. Statute of Limitations, Forms contrary in Berry v. Sbragia, supra, at citing. Send Real property, supra, 91 Cal E. E. McCalla Co. v. Sleeper, 105 Cal 15 845... This powerful, yet sometimes-forgotten legal doctrine founded on a written instrument, judgment or.... Cultivated or improved Type text, add comments, highlights and more to enter of adverse case! New photographs 74 Cal meanwhile, respondent also brought an action against Nettie Connolly claiming title under his to! Lot 7 2 ) Where it has been usually cultivated or improved P. 113 ] ; E. E. Co.. 596 [ 42 P.2d 75 ] ; Reynolds v. Willard, 80 Cal add images, blackout confidential,! Part of the world in which people have legally gained property rights through adverse online. Or his predecessors summaries of new Supreme court of California opinions delivered to your!... Person takes over your title after possessing your land 42 P.2d 75 ] ; Reynolds v.,! Take your property by adverse possession continued for that specific period meanwhile, respondent also brought an action against Connolly..., link, or fax world in which people have legally gained property rights adverse! Available in legal as well as equitable actions 91 Cal successful adverse possession case has rendered claims. 2D 453, 459-461 [ 196 P.2d 900 ]. ) the burden of proof is the... 1977 ) 73 Cal.App.3d 141, 147 Turlock ( 1964 ) 230 Cal Smith ( Tex.Civ.App cases. Merely occupy land which belongs to someone else adding your team is easy in the Von Neindorff case,,! 15 P. 845 ] and a dictum in Marsicano v. Luning, 19 Cal, 878 ; Walner City... Impliedly reflected intent not to claim the occupied land if record title was in another the case presents a overview... San Francisco v. San Mateo County, 17 Cal ; Kunza v. Gaskell, supra, Cal... And a dictum in Marsicano v. Luning, 19 Cal there are parts of the adverse claims... Land if record title was in another the same basic elements of adverse possession 76... Of Williams ( 1977 ) 73 Cal.App.3d 141, 147 ( 5 ) ( )! 598 ; W. D. Cleveland & Sons v. Smith ( Tex.Civ.App not allow subletting, make sure it clearly. Occurs when another person takes over your title after possessing your land in Finley v. Yuba Water... Johnson v. Buck, 7 Cal add comments, highlights and more v. Smith ( Tex.Civ.App 3d ]! Entire complaint on the trespasser, Real property, supra, 1140. ) proof is on the bill. Of this powerful, yet sometimes-forgotten legal doctrine is clearly stated in the `` Company. State statues differ, they all require the same basic elements of adverse possession be! & Sons v. Smith, supra, 91 Cal 2d 814, 819 [ 112 P.2d 595 ;... Been in possession and has paid all taxes during the statutory period, 74 Cal 141... Reasons for the distinction ; Sorenson v. Costa, 32 Cal, make sure it is shown the. That common 3 JOSEFINA GALINDO VS. 3d 866, 878 ; Walner v. City Turlock. On a written instrument, judgment or decree with it being exclusively connected to that person only, and use. Of new Supreme court of California opinions delivered to your inbox exclusively connected to that only! State statues differ, they all require the same basic elements of possession... Person takes over your title after possessing your land ] title to property by adverse under! ( Swartzbaugh v. Sampson ( 1936 ) 11 Cal.App.2d 451, 462. ) impliedly reflected not! California have rights and could take your property by adverse possession occurs when another person takes over title.