A California Encroachment

 On May 27th 2020 Our (former) neighbor filed a lawsuit in an attempt to legalize her encroachment. As per her complaint, she "seeks to quiet title."  

The key part of D's complaint - made under oath:

The complaint, in text:

 19. [D] holds, owns, and has title to the EASEMENT over the [K]

 PROPERTY, which includes the BLOCK WALL, the GARAGE, the NEW ARCH, and the

 STRIP OF LAND for the benefit of the [D]' PROPERTY.

 20. [D] title to the EASEMENT is based on [D]'s and [D]'s

predecessors' actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile and adverse use of the EASEMENT over

the [K] PROPERTY for more than five years preceding the commencement of this action. 

Several points in the complaint are explained below. 

But first, an image taken from survey commissioned by [D]. Note survey commissioned by [K] shows the same thing, namely that even from the street it is evident that D's construction lies on D's neighbor's property.

 Here are before (2015) and after (2017) shots of the same spot:

Notice the new arch and the old arch are not in the same place. Also notice that the new arch is much wider than the new arch. So how did the Arch come to be widened and moved onto D's neighbor's property? Well...  this was the plan D presented to her neighbors(K):

Notice the plan she presented states it is for a "Revised Arch @ Property Line." So much for "open" as alleged in the Complaint, or "revised" as it was made to look very different and wider.

But what of the allegation in the Complaint that D had occupied that land before? Here's a Google Maps image (lightly annotated) from 2011: 

It is clear from the image that D's Old Arch, and the East West fence connected to it, were entirely on D's property, and not D's neighbor's property as alleged by D in D's complaint. D should know this, as D was in the picture! 

Same view, but from 2015 (and without D in it)...  less than 5 years before D's filing (despite the allegation) about timing, etc.:

So for the Arch & "Strip of Land" - there simply wasn't "use" as claimed by D, and certainly not for five years preceding the filing as also claimed.

The other big issue is the Wall, which as per the Complaint allegation, was hostile. And yet, D has previously submitted this attestation by the previous owner of D's property:

Given D's submission of that attestation, D cannot claim, as was done in the Complaint, that the Wall was hostile. For a complaint made under oath, there seem to be a surprising number of claims that are objectively false or which contradict D's previous claims. There's a lot more. Maybe I'll add details over time. Since the lawsuit continues, I'm sure there will be more developments.