Raab v. Casper
124 Cal. Rptr. 590, 1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1416, 51 Cal. App. 3d 866 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California's good faith improver statute, a court must consider the improver's degree of negligence when determining if they acted in good faith, and continuing construction after being warned of a potential trespass is a legally significant factor that weighs against a finding of good faith. Furthermore, a court cannot grant what is effectively an estate in land under the guise of a prescriptive easement; a claimant seeking exclusive and unlimited use must prove the elements of adverse possession, including the payment of taxes on the disputed property.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs and defendants, the Caspers, own adjoining parcels of land acquired from a common grantor.
- The common boundary between their properties had never been officially surveyed or marked.
- Starting in January 1970, Mr. Casper began building a cabin based on an assumed boundary line from an oral statement made by the original seller years prior.
- In September 1970, after the cabin's foundation, walls, and roof were complete, the plaintiffs observed the construction and warned Mr. Casper that they believed he was building on their property.
- Despite this warning and without obtaining a survey, Mr. Casper continued construction and completed the cabin, more than doubling his investment in the structure.
- Separately, approximately 10 years prior to the lawsuit, the Caspers had also built part of their main home's driveway, yard, and utility lines on the plaintiffs' land at a different point on the boundary.
- A survey later commissioned by the plaintiffs confirmed that the cabin was entirely on their land and that the other improvements also encroached on their property.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed suit against the Caspers in the superior court (trial court), seeking a mandatory injunction and damages for two separate trespasses.
- Following a trial, the court found the Caspers were good faith improvers with respect to the cabin they built on plaintiffs' land.
- The trial court entered a judgment that realigned the property boundary to give the Caspers the land with the cabin, and it awarded the plaintiffs monetary compensation for the value of the land, partial survey costs, and attorney's fees.
- The court also found that the Caspers had acquired a prescriptive easement over the portion of the plaintiffs' land where the Caspers' main house, yard, and driveway encroached.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the superior court's judgment to the 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:
Under California's good faith improver statute, must a trial court consider a builder's degree of negligence, particularly their decision to continue construction after receiving a warning from the landowner, when determining if the builder acted in 'good faith'?
Opinions:
Majority - Friedman, Acting P. J.
Yes. A trial court must consider the improver's degree of negligence in determining good faith. The good faith improver statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.3) introduced a negligence component to the traditional concept of good faith, requiring an assessment of care as well as honesty. The trial court committed reversible error by failing to make a finding on Mr. Casper's negligence. His decision to continue construction and augment his investment after receiving a direct warning from the plaintiffs is inconsistent with good faith and is a legally significant factor the court must weigh. This intransigence exposed the plaintiffs to a greater deprivation of their ownership rights. Additionally, the trial court's judgment failed to achieve substantial justice by not compensating plaintiffs for the loss of an access easement on the land awarded to defendants and by awarding only a fraction of the reasonable survey cost. Regarding the encroachment by the main house, the trial court erred in granting a prescriptive easement that was so comprehensive it was the practical equivalent of an estate. To acquire such exclusive use, the Caspers were required to prove the elements of adverse possession, not prescriptive use, and they failed to prove they had paid taxes on the encroached property, a necessary element of adverse possession.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of California's good faith improver statute by integrating an objective negligence standard into the traditionally subjective concept of 'good faith.' It establishes that an improver's actions after being put on notice of a potential trespass are critical, and continuing to build can negate their good faith status. This prevents improvers from strategically increasing their investment to strengthen their equitable claim after a dispute arises. The opinion also reinforces the doctrinal boundary between prescriptive easements (use) and adverse possession (ownership), preventing litigants from acquiring title to land without meeting the stricter, statutorily-defined requirements for adverse possession, particularly the payment of taxes.
Unlock the full brief for Raab v. Casper