Humphrey v. Futter
169 Cal. App. 3d 333, 1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2002, 215 Cal. Rptr. 178 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral agreement between adjoining landowners to fix a boundary line becomes the legally binding boundary when there is uncertainty as to the true line, the parties agree to a new line, and one party acts in reliance on that agreement to their substantial detriment.
Facts:
- In 1971, Daniel Mauerhan sold a six-acre parcel of his ranch to Russell and Florence Putter.
- Before the sale, Mauerhan walked the property with Russell Putter and indicated a boundary line by sighting along two large oak trees.
- Between 1971 and 1973, relying on the indicated boundary, the Putters built a pole barn and another small structure near the tree line.
- In 1973, after a dispute, Mauerhan and Putter again discussed the boundary, with Mauerhan confirming that if Putter stayed south of the line sighted through the oak trees, he would be on his own property.
- Following the 1973 discussion, the Putters removed one structure but left the pole barn, and in 1975, they built a 2,500-square-foot rental house just south of the pole barn, still relying on the tree line as the boundary.
- In 1978, the Humphreys purchased the adjoining 90-acre parcel from Mauerhan's successor in interest.
- In late 1978, a surveyor hired by the Putters discovered that the official boundary line described in the deed ran through the middle of the new rental house and that the pole barn was entirely on the Humphreys' property.
Procedural Posture:
- Glen M. Humphrey and Magdalena S. Humphrey sued Russell T. Putter and Florence V. Putter in a trial court to compel the removal of structures they alleged were encroaching on their property.
- The Putters filed a cross-complaint against the Humphreys to quiet title to the disputed area.
- Following a trial to the court, the trial court entered a judgment quieting title to the disputed area in favor of the Putters.
- The Humphreys, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
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 an oral agreement between adjoining landowners to treat a specific line marked by natural monuments as their boundary establish a legally binding 'agreed boundary' that is enforceable against successors in interest, even when a later survey shows the true deed line is different?
Opinions:
Majority - Rickles, J.
Yes, an oral agreement between adjoining landowners to fix a boundary is legally binding under the doctrine of agreed boundary when its elements are met. The court found sufficient evidence to establish all three elements of an agreed boundary: (1) uncertainty as to the true boundary, which the parties conceded; (2) an agreement between the original owners (Mauerhan and Putter) to accept the line sighted through the oak trees as the boundary; and (3) action taken in reliance on that agreement—the Putters' construction of a 2,500-square-foot rental house—which would result in a substantial loss if the boundary were altered. The court rejected the argument that the agreement was invalid because a survey could have located the true line, noting that modern precedent allows the doctrine to apply even in cases of mutual mistake. Furthermore, the Humphreys, as successors in interest to Mauerhan, are bound by the agreement because an agreed boundary becomes the true legal line and because the existence of the Putters' buildings provided constructive notice of their claim to the land.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strength and utility of the agreed boundary doctrine in property law, prioritizing stability and the intent of landowners over strict adherence to deed descriptions. The decision confirms that an informal, oral agreement, when relied upon to one party's significant detriment, can permanently alter property lines. It establishes that subsequent purchasers are bound by these unrecorded agreements, especially when physical structures on the land provide notice of a potential boundary discrepancy. This precedent solidifies that the doctrine is not defeated by the mere fact that a correct survey could have resolved the initial uncertainty, thereby protecting landowners who make substantial investments based on good-faith boundary agreements.
