Dooley's Hardware Mart v. Trigg

California Court of Appeal Mar 3, 1969 No. Civ. 32364Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant failed to establish title to the disputed strip via adverse possession, estoppel, or agreed boundary, but successfully established a prescriptive easement for driveway purposes. Consequently, the court reversed the award of damages and limited the easement to driveway use, excluding the maintenance of structures like a plastic shield.

Issues

Whether the appellant acquired title to a strip of land through adverse possession, estoppel, or the doctrine of agreed boundary.
Whether the appellant acquired a prescriptive easement for the use of the strip as a driveway.
Whether the trial court erred in its determination regarding the open and notorious requirement for a prescriptive easement.

Disposition. affirmed in part and reversed in part

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Appellant cannot claim title to the strip by adverse possession, for she paid no taxes on any portion of Lot 5 during the period of her encroachment.”

“Having continuously used the strip for driveway purposes for the statutory period, she acquired an easement by prescription.”

“However, appellant’s easement is limited to one foot for driveway purposes. It does not extend to the erection and maintenance on the strip of such insubstantial structures as the plastic shield.”

FLEMING, J.

Dooley’s Hardware Mart (personified here as Dooley), the owmer of Lot 5, obtained judgment and $40 damages against Dorice Trigg, the owner of Lot 6, enjoining her from using a strip of Lot 5, 94 feet long and one foot wide. Mrs. Trigg appealed, claiming title to the one-foot strip by adverse possession, estoppel, and agreed boundary. In the alternative, she claimed a prescriptive easement to the use of the strip for driveway purposes.

In 1955 Dooley bought Lot 5 for use as a parking lot in connection with the operation of his hardware store. A Long Beach ordinance required a fence around parking lots. Dooley erected a concrete block fence parallel to the boundary of the lot now owned by appellant, but one foot short of the boundary. With respect to the fixing of the line, Dooley testified:

[339]

<£Q. And you put up a fence along the westerly boundary of that property?

A. Yes, I hired a contractor to put up a fence.

Q. Now, did you fix the location of the fence for the contractor ?

A. Yes I did. I thought it was near the line.

Q. You went out and looked at the property ?

A. Yes. I told the contractor where to put the fence and I thought it was near the line.

Q. Did you use any means other than visual examination to ascertain—

A. Yes, I believe we measured. We measured, we thought, across the front of the property.

Q. At that time or at a later time did you measure ?

A. We measured some. We evidently made a mistake. I thought that we were on the line or right close to the line when we built the fence. ’ ’

Mrs. Trigg acquired her lot in 1957. She thought the concrete block fence marked the boundary between her lot and Dooley’s and in 1957 she built a concrete driveway parallel to and abutting the concrete block fence. In 1959, to secure privacy from Dooley’s customers, she erected a plastic shield resting on a portion of the strip and extending three feet above the adjoining concrete block fence.

Dooley's Hardware Mart v. Trigg

AI Brief

FLEMING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief