Degann v. Hunanyan
Defendants and appellants Anna Hunanyan also known as Anna Hunanyan-Meguerian also known as Azniv Meguerian, and Lucy Meguerian appeal from a judgment quieting title to certain property in favor of plaintiffs and respondents Jonathan Degann and Tina Degann (the Deganns). Appellants and the Deganns are adjacent landowners, and the Deganns believed that the property they purchased included certain outdoor improvements. A survey revealed that part of the improved area included appellants’ property. Following a bench trial, the trial court ruled that the Deganns had established all elements of adverse possession. It specifically ruled the Deganns’ evidence that their property had been assessed on the basis of their purchase price, coupled with evidence that they considered their purchase price to include the visible improvements, was sufficient to demonstrate they had paid property taxes on that portion of appellants’ property.
We reverse. To overcome the presumption that adjoining landowners pay property taxes only on the property described in their deeds, an adverse claimant may offer evidence to support an inference that the assessor instead assessed the property according to the land and improvements visibly possessed by each party. We hold that where there is no evidence that anyone from the assessor’s office inspected the property or considered the visible improvements when making a tax assessment, a buyer’s subjective opinion about the inclusion of those improvements as part of the property’s purchase price is insufficient to support the inference a fair market value assessment accounted for those improvements. Alternatively, the Deganns failed to prove their adverse possession claim because they did not offer evidence of their tax payment via “certified records of the county tax collector†as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 325, subdivision (b).
Comments on Degann v. Hunanyan