Navarro v. Paulley

DRAPEAU, J. pro tem.

The facts in this case are mostly undisputed, and mostly stipulated, and appear to be as follows : 40th Place, in the city of Los Angeles, runs east and west to Normandie Avenue. And, of course, Normandie Avenue runs north and south. On the northeast corner of the junction of these two streets is Lot 29 of West Park Tract,

[828]

No. 2. Lot 28 in. the same tract is immediately north of and adjoining Lot 29. These lots front 50 feet on Normandie Avenue and are 132.76 feet in depth.

In 1921 both lots were owned by one person, who erected two frame residences on Lot 29, one at the front and one at the rear of the lot, and also, at the rear of the lot, a garage. This garage extended over the boundary line of Lot 29, approximately five feet north into Lot 28. Later on, this same common owner built a fence running west from the northwest corner of the garage to a point 50 feet west from the rear of the lot. At this point the fence turned a right angle south 5 feet to the boundary line between the two lots. Thus it appears that there was a garage at the rear of Lot 29, the north 5 feet of it built upon Lot 28, and there was also a fence running west from the north line of the garage, located about 5 feet north of the common boundary line of the two lots. At a point 50 feet west from the rear of Lot 28 the fence jogged back to the 'boundary line.

In this respect the defendant testified:

“They gave me the key and told me to look it over. So I looked over the front house first, it was vacant, and then I went to the back and looked around, went through the garage and looked where the fence was to see just how far my property went over, and I thought it was pretty nice because the garage and the house was all fenced in already.”

Some years after the houses and garage were built a successor in the title sold Lot 28 to the plaintiff in this case. The plaintiff was told by the real estate broker who negotiated the sale that she was to get a lot a full 50 feet wide and that the garage and fence from Lot 29 extended into the lot she was purchasing. Then, subsequently to the conveyance of Lot 28, Lot 29 was sold to the defendant.

' Within a few days after the defendant went into possession of Lot 29, the plaintiff advised her that the fence and garage were over the boundary line, and upon plaintiff’s property, but the defendant did nothing about it.' The plaintiff then offered to execute a lease of the garage to the defendant, so that it would not be necessary to move it', but still the defendant did nothing. Thereupon the plaintiff tore down' the encroaching fence, put a hew fence on the boundary line between the two lots, and commenced this action to quiet title.