Harrison v. Welch
11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 92, 2004 Daily Journal DAR 3285, 116 Cal. App. 4th 1084 (2004)
Rule of Law:
An exclusive prescriptive easement cannot be granted in a residential boundary dispute if it effectively prohibits the true owner from using the land; additionally, an action to enjoin a permanent encroachment is considered an action to recover real property subject to a five-year statute of limitations.
Facts:
- In 1980, Welch purchased a residential lot next to a vacant lot.
- In 1985, Welch planted a tree that crossed the property line onto the adjacent vacant lot.
- In 1994, Welch built a woodshed and installed planter boxes and an irrigation system that further encroached onto the vacant lot.
- Welch attempted to locate the boundary line before construction but failed to ascertain the true boundary.
- The woodshed and landscaping effectively prevented any other use of that specific portion of the land by the true owners.
- The Harrisons purchased the vacant lot in March 2001.
- In June 2001, the Harrisons surveyed the property and discovered Welch's encroachments extended significantly onto their lot.
Procedural Posture:
- The Harrisons filed a complaint in the trial court (Superior Court) to quiet title and enjoin Welch's encroachments.
- Welch filed a cross-complaint seeking to establish title via adverse possession or a prescriptive easement.
- The trial court denied Welch's claims for adverse possession and prescriptive easement.
- The trial court ruled that the Harrisons' request for an injunction was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for trespass.
- Exercising equitable powers on the cross-complaint, the trial court ordered Welch to remove the woodshed and landscaping but allowed buried lines to remain.
- Welch appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a residential encroachment that effectively excludes the true owner from using their land qualify for a prescriptive easement, and is a lawsuit to remove such an encroachment barred by the three-year statute of limitations for trespass?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Robie
No, an exclusive prescriptive easement cannot be granted for this type of encroachment, and no, the action to remove the encroachment was not time-barred. The court reasoned that granting a prescriptive easement for a shed and landscaping that excludes the owner from the land effectively creates an ownership interest (fee simple) without meeting the strict requirements for adverse possession, such as paying taxes. Citing precedents like Raab and Silacci, the court held that exclusive prescriptive easements are not permitted in garden-variety residential disputes. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court held that seeking to enjoin an encroachment is an action to 'recover possession' of property, which carries a five-year limitation under Code of Civil Procedure sections 318 and 321. This five-year clock does not expire unless the encroacher successfully acquires title via adverse possession or a valid easement.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict distinction between adverse possession (which grants ownership and requires tax payments) and prescriptive easements (which grant use rights). By denying 'exclusive' prescriptive easements, the court prevents encroachers from bypassing the tax requirement of adverse possession to effectively seize a neighbor's land. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that the statute of limitations for removing permanent encroachments is five years, not three, providing stronger protection for property owners against boundary violations.
