PDA

View Full Version : Trespassing Laws for California


sfpcservice
08-20-2011, 5:53 PM
I have a question about trespassing laws. There is a place in unincorporated Solano County where people have been shooting. I know this place is private property and I know the land owner lives in the Philippines per the recorders office. There are no signs posted and it is well away from the main access road and over 1/4 mile from any structure with a solid backstop. Are there any legal issues using this land if it's not posted?

Quiet
08-20-2011, 6:29 PM
CA tresspassing laws generally require you to be first advised/warned not to tresspass on to the property. If you are caught on the property after you have been warned, then you can be charged.

CA tresspassing laws that may pertain to your situation... If the area is fenced off, you may run afoul PC 602(l)(4).

Penal Code 602
Except as provided in subdivision (u), subdivision (v), subdivision (x), and Section 602.8, every person who willfully commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor:
(i) Willfully opening, tearing down, or otherwise destroying any fence on the enclosed land of another, or opening any gate, bar, or fence of another and willfully leaving it open without the written permission of the owner, or maliciously tearing down, mutilating, or destroying any sign, signboard, or other notice forbidding shooting on private property.
(l) Entering any lands under cultivation or enclosed by fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another, or entering upon uncultivated or unenclosed lands where signs forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the lands without the written permission of the owner of the land, the owner's agent or of the person in lawful possession, and
(1) Refusing or failing to leave the lands immediately upon being requested by the owner of the land, the owner's agent or by the person in lawful possession to leave the lands, or
(2) Tearing down, mutilating, or destroying any sign, signboard, or notice forbidding trespass or hunting on the lands, or
(3) Removing, injuring, unlocking, or tampering with any lock on any gate on or leading into the lands, or
(4) Discharging any firearm.
(o) Refusing or failing to leave land, real property, or structures belonging to or lawfully occupied by another and not open to the general public, upon being requested to leave by (1) a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, or (2) the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession. The owner, the
owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession shall make a separate request to the peace officer on each occasion when the peace officer's assistance in dealing with a trespass is requested. However, a single request for a peace officer's assistance may be made to cover a limited period of time not to exceed 30 days and identified by specific dates, during which there is a fire hazard or the owner, owner's agent or person in lawful possession is absent from the premises or property. In addition, a single request for a peace officer's assistance may be made for a period not to exceed six months when the premises or property is closed to the public and posted as being closed. However, this subdivision shall not be applicable to persons engaged in lawful labor union activities which are permitted to be carried out on the property by the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, Part 3.5 (commencing with Section 1140) of Division 2 of the Labor Code, or by the National Labor Relations Act. For purposes of this section, land, real property, or structures owned or operated by any housing authority for tenants as
defined under Section 34213.5 of the Health and Safety Code constitutes property not open to the general public; however, this subdivision shall not apply to persons on the premises who are engaging in activities protected by the California or United States Constitution, or to persons who are on the premises at the request of a resident or management and who are not loitering or otherwise suspected of violating or actually violating any law or ordinance.
(p) Entering upon any lands declared closed to entry as provided in Section 4256 of the Public Resources Code, if the closed areas shall have been posted with notices declaring the closure, at intervals not greater than one mile along the exterior boundaries or along roads and trails passing through the lands.
(t)(1) Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person; or refusing or failing to leave the property upon being asked to leave the property in the manner provided in this subdivision.
(2) This subdivision shall apply only to a person who has been convicted of a crime committed upon the particular private property.
(3) A single notification or request to the person as set forth above shall be valid and enforceable under this subdivision unless and until rescinded by the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession of the property.
(4) Where the person has been convicted of a violent felony, as described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, this subdivision shall apply without time limitation. Where the person has been convicted of any other felony, this subdivision shall apply for no more than five years from the date of conviction. Where the person has been convicted of a misdemeanor, this subdivision shall apply for no more than two years from the date of conviction. Where the person was convicted for an infraction pursuant to Section 490.1, this subdivision shall apply for no more than one year from the date of conviction. This subdivision shall not apply to convictions for any
other infraction.

resident-shooter
08-20-2011, 11:00 PM
Its good that a mad redneck owner can't shoot u without a warning in the middle of an open field which he owns a small portion of.

L84CABO
08-21-2011, 1:58 AM
Am I missing something here? This is private property...and you know it's private property. But you're going to walk onto somebody else's land to shoot without their permission? You're concerned about maybe getting arrested but you have no concerns using someone else's property without their permission?

That just doesn't sound very cool to me...seems pretty disrepectful unless I've misunderstood something here.

How would you feel if a bunch of people showed up on your front lawn one day to...oh I don't know...have a big yard sale or something...because there isn't a "no tresspassing" sign posted?

AragornElessar86
08-21-2011, 2:03 AM
Am I missing something here? This is private property...and you know it's private property. But you're going to walk onto somebody else's land to shoot without their permission? You're concerned about maybe getting arrested but you have no concerns using someone else's property without their permission?

That just doesn't sound very cool to me...seems pretty disrepectful unless I've misunderstood something here.

How would you feel if a bunch of people showed up on your front lawn one day to...oh I don't know...have a big yard sale or something...because there isn't a "no tresspassing" sign posted?

I think it's a different situation. Often this kind of land is owned by investors or the like, and it's not really an invasion of privacy or anything. I grew up in a non incorporated area and our property was bordered by over a square mile of empty land owned by an investment group planning on developing it. The owners lived on the east coast and all but one had never even seen the land.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

Meplat
08-21-2011, 3:19 AM
Be very careful! One thing that seems to have been missed here it that if a place is properly posted (and three per mile is pretty easy to comply with) and you are armed while trespassing it can bump up to a felony! I got this info from a Co Sheriff that was explaining it to a landowner friend of mine, so take it as cop fud if you like. But I would check just to make sure. He said it was rarely charged as a felony against ordinary hunters and plinkers unless the land owner just wanted to be an influential asshat and pushed the DA fore it. Otherwise it was there for use against thieves, and vandals they just couldnt get the goods on any other way.

Meplat
08-21-2011, 3:43 AM
I sort of concur. I grew up in rural CA. When we were kids we could roam just about anywhere. We kept the vermin under control we knew safe gun handling rules from the time we were four or five and were out hunting rabbits and squirrels on our own at 8 or 9. It actually felt like a free country back then. Of course it was expected that we would ask permission. But not every time. We werenít disruptive little vandals and punks either, that helped. It was actually similar for the adults. Everybody knew everybody, and everyone knew who didnít wand folks on their land, and who no one wanted on their land. I think it's a different situation. Often this kind of land is owned by investors or the like, and it's not really an invasion of privacy or anything. I grew up in a non incorporated area and our property was bordered by over a square mile of empty land owned by an investment group planning on developing it. The owners lived on the east coast and all but one had never even seen the land.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

sfpcservice
08-21-2011, 1:05 PM
The place in question is not posted whatsoever and is an obvious local shooting spot. I haven't shot there since I learned it was private. Once I found out, I looked up the owner info at the county and that's found out they were absentee. That doesn't rule out a local lease holder, but this is basically land that is unusable for agriculture due to the rough terrain. If it were my land and I didn't want that activity, I would post it. This land hasn't been posted in 15 years.

Pixs
08-21-2011, 1:14 PM
Try looking up implied easment in the CA R/E code

Meplat
08-21-2011, 4:17 PM
The place in question is not posted whatsoever and is an obvious local shooting spot. I haven't shot there since I learned it was private. Once I found out, I looked up the owner info at the county and that's found out they were absentee. That doesn't rule out a local lease holder, but this is basically land that is unusable for agriculture due to the rough terrain. If it were my land and I didn't want that activity, I would post it. This land hasn't been posted in 15 years.

If you contact the owner and tell him what is going on he will get it posted somehow, if he is smart! Due to:

1. Liability:eek:

2. Adverse possession:43:

Meplat
08-21-2011, 4:24 PM
What does R/E stand for. I cant find it in the california Codes?:confused:[F]Try looking up implied easment in the CA R/E code[/FONT]

FXR
08-21-2011, 8:18 PM
What does R/E stand for. I cant find it in the california Codes?:confused:

Real Estate

Pixs
08-22-2011, 10:16 AM
2. Adverse possession:43:

You need to live on the land and pay the taxes regardless of whether they are paid by the owner. IIRC the time you need to adversly posess the land is five years.

a1c
08-22-2011, 11:17 AM
You need to live on the land and pay the taxes regardless of whether they are paid by the owner. IIRC the time you need to adversly posess the land is five years.

No, you don't need to live on the land. Continuous cultivation, improvements, harvest, regularly used for timber - it all qualifies under CA law as "occupation" as long as it also was enclosed (e.g. a fence).

I have a lawyer friend hoping to file adverse possession for some or all of the lot next to his in a few more years. He included some of it in his fencing, landscaped it, and the owners haven't been seen in years. They will be in for a surprise.

E Pluribus Unum
08-22-2011, 11:27 AM
I have a lawyer friend hoping to file adverse possession for some or all of the lot next to his in a few more years. He included some of it in his fencing, landscaped it, and the owners haven't been seen in years. They will be in for a surprise.

That is absolutely legal theft in my view.

So, if I own a piece of land in the hills for my retirement, I have to go there every few years to make sure some scumbag hasn't put a fence around it and landscaped it or I could lose it?

It just goes to show that just because attorneys take ethics courses, not all of them are ethical.

Bobby B.
08-22-2011, 11:55 AM
I have a lawyer friend hoping to file adverse possession for some or all of the lot next to his in a few more years. He included some of it in his fencing, landscaped it, and the owners haven't been seen in years. They will be in for a surprise.

What a scumbag move.

And if you endorse that type of thing, you're no better.

a1c
08-22-2011, 12:44 PM
What a scumbag move.

And if you endorse that type of thing, you're no better.

Well, let's remember that's how this country was built. :D

I can see both sides of the argument. But if you own land somewhere, you need to tend to it. You can't just own property and not care for it, especially when it's completely undeveloped. You need to be a stewart of the land, even if it's just building a basic fence around it.

If you're a land owner somewhere and you don't want to bother visiting your property once every 5 years, just fence it and post "No Trespassing" signs. Problem solved. Otherwise you're just an absentee landowner who doesn't deserve that land that someone else could make a better use of.

CSACANNONEER
08-22-2011, 12:54 PM
If you contact the owner and tell him what is going on he will get it posted somehow, if he is smart! Due to:

1. Liability:eek:

2. Adverse possession:43:

When it comes to adverse possession or prescriptive easements, all the owner has to to protect his property rights is to allow the use of his property. If you look at the laws, they have wording like "openly and hostily". So, to combat that wording, all the owner has to do is give permision and then, the tresspass is nota "hostile" act. Of course, a smart owner always reserves the right to revoke said permission at any time.

socal2310
08-22-2011, 1:05 PM
You could also provide written permission for the person to use the property and that would also prevent adverse possession. Ironically, the shooters may actually protect the property owner from the loss of the land due to adverse possession (would you try to squat on a firing range?).

E Pluribus Unum
08-22-2011, 1:14 PM
Well, let's remember that's how this country was built. :D

I can see both sides of the argument. But if you own land somewhere, you need to tend to it. You can't just own property and not care for it, especially when it's completely undeveloped. You need to be a stewart of the land, even if it's just building a basic fence around it.

If you're a land owner somewhere and you don't want to bother visiting your property once every 5 years, just fence it and post "No Trespassing" signs. Problem solved. Otherwise you're just an absentee landowner who doesn't deserve that land that someone else could make a better use of.

Fencing it is not good enough... what if your scumbag lawyer neighbor rips your fence down and pushes his out?

The logic is asinine. My family had some property in Los Gatos canyon, Colorado, in the middle of BFE. Because of financial issues, we did not see it for 15 years because it takes so long to get there. My dad sold it a few years ago, but had his neighbor torn down the fence and encompassed the property, did my dad deserve to lose it?

I guess the phrase "If you don't use it, you lose it" applies to personal property too.

a1c
08-22-2011, 1:35 PM
Fencing it is not good enough... what if your scumbag lawyer neighbor rips your fence down and pushes his out?

Then it wouldn't work. If the property is already fenced off, and if someone else pushes it out, it's trespassing. Doesn't qualify - at least not in California.

The logic is asinine. My family had some property in Los Gatos canyon, Colorado, in the middle of BFE. Because of financial issues, we did not see it for 15 years because it takes so long to get there. My dad sold it a few years ago, but had his neighbor torn down the fence and encompassed the property, did my dad deserve to lose it?

I guess the phrase "If you don't use it, you lose it" applies to personal property too.

It sometimes does, yes. Same applies to abandoned vehicles under certain circumstances.

I should add that that friend of mine is actually tending to that lot - clearing out bushes and small tress - in a high risk wildfire area. The owner hasn't show up in years and doesn't seem to care one bit about the lot, even though neglecting it could lead to increased wildfire risks for his neighbors.

Bobby B.
08-22-2011, 1:42 PM
Well, let's remember that's how this country was built. :D

I can see both sides of the argument. But if you own land somewhere, you need to tend to it. You can't just own property and not care for it, especially when it's completely undeveloped. You need to be a stewart of the land, even if it's just building a basic fence around it.

If you're a land owner somewhere and you don't want to bother visiting your property once every 5 years, just fence it and post "No Trespassing" signs. Problem solved. Otherwise you're just an absentee landowner who doesn't deserve that land that someone else could make a better use of.

Who are you, or anyone else, to tell someone how or what they have to do with their own personal property to "deserve" it?

If I worked for it, paid for it, own it, pay taxes on it -- I deserve it.

5thgen4runner
08-22-2011, 1:45 PM
Who are you, or anyone else, to tell someone how or what they have to do with their own personal property to "deserve" it?

If I worked for it, paid for it, own it, pay taxes on it -- I deserve it.

Amen

a1c
08-22-2011, 1:46 PM
Who are you, or anyone else, to tell someone how or what they have to do with their own personal property to "deserve" it?

If I worked for it, paid for it, own it, pay taxes on it -- I deserve it.

Who am I? It's not me who's telling it. It's the LAW.

If you don't fence it and leave someone else "occupy" it continuously for 5 years, they may get it then, not you. There are a LOT of ways you can avoid it. Which is why adverse possession cases are actually not that common.

That's how it is, and by the way, it's a statute that's inherited since at least 16th century English common law.

Bobby B.
08-22-2011, 2:37 PM
Who am I? It's not me who's telling it. It's the LAW.

If you don't fence it and leave someone else "occupy" it continuously for 5 years, they may get it then, not you. There are a LOT of ways you can avoid it. Which is why adverse possession cases are actually not that common.

That's how it is, and by the way, it's a statute that's inherited since at least 16th century English common law.

We shouldn't have to jump through hoops to rightfully keep what's ours. People spend so much time and effort trying to lay their hands on what doesn't belong to them, like the aforementioned lawyer working to game the system so he can steal his neighbor's land. To me, that's no better than those working the system to suck down entitlements because "they deserve it."

It's wrong and just because "our betters" have been writing it into law over the years doesn't make it right.

Mesa Tactical
08-22-2011, 2:49 PM
That is absolutely legal theft in my view.

So, if I own a piece of land in the hills for my retirement, I have to go there every few years to make sure some scumbag hasn't put a fence around it and landscaped it or I could lose it?

It just goes to show that just because attorneys take ethics courses, not all of them are ethical.

English common law. Been this way for hundreds of years, maybe a thousand years.

taperxz
08-22-2011, 2:52 PM
If an owner restricts free access once a year, all statutes start over.

odysseus
08-22-2011, 2:56 PM
I agree the position of people designing themselves to take over land via adverse position are abhorrent to good men. However as a land owner it is easy enough to just do certain things to protect yourself from this kind of action and easily prove away that kind of action, and it would behoove a land owner to do those basic provisions.

CavTrooper
08-22-2011, 2:59 PM
First off, whether I visit my property once a week or once a decade, if I find you on it, you will be removed.

Secondly, the fact that anyone would knowingly tresspass on anothers property, posted or not, shows the level of integrity of that individual. You are a criminal, a thief and a lowlife.

Tresspassers deserve to be arrested on sight, armed tresspassers should be considered a threat and handled as such.

CSACANNONEER
08-22-2011, 3:05 PM
First off, whether I visit my property once a week or once a decade, if I find you on it, you will be removed.

Secondly, the fact that anyone would knowingly tresspass on anothers property, posted or not, shows the level of integrity of that individual. You are a criminal, a thief and a lowlife.

Tresspassers deserve to be arrested on sight, armed tresspassers should be considered a threat and handled as such.

I LEGALY tresspass all the time at work. My proffession (Land Surveyor) requires it and the law requires that any owner or tenant grants me access without undo delay. So, while I agree with your emotional response, the facts are that I and many other "tresspassers" am not criminals but, instead we have the legal right to enter your property as needed to conduct our work and you have the legal responsibility to grant me access. If you attept to stop me from doing my job, you can and will be arrested. If you use phyiscal violence while trying to stop me, I will defend myself with whatever means I have at my disposal. Yes, I have had to have land owners physically restrained and almost taken into custody by the local LEOs while I tresspassed on their land. I have heard of LEOs taking people into custody and telling the surveyor to "hurry up because, we can only hold him for X hours" too. So, be careful how you handle tresspassers. Yea, I always attempt to get prior permission when feasable and use these laws as a last resort. I really hate intruding on others but, the job has to be done.

dantodd
08-22-2011, 3:19 PM
And what happens when you abandon your property in the middle of my neighborhood? Do I just leave your rotting corpse of a home and lot as-is so that it destroys the neighborhood or do I rehabilitate it and maintain it? If I do the latter do I not deserve some compensation?

a1c
08-22-2011, 3:21 PM
First off, whether I visit my property once a week or once a decade, if I find you on it, you will be removed.

Secondly, the fact that anyone would knowingly tresspass on anothers property, posted or not, shows the level of integrity of that individual. You are a criminal, a thief and a lowlife.

Tresspassers deserve to be arrested on sight, armed tresspassers should be considered a threat and handled as such.

Depends on what you mean by "trespassing." I go through a neighbor's piece of land several times a week to reach a piece of land where I hunt. It's not fenced, it's got no "No trespassing" signs, and it has a well-travelled path going through it. That's not trespassing. I know I'm going through someone else's property, but what I am doing is just following common easement laws, not trespassing.

CavTrooper
08-22-2011, 3:25 PM
I LEGALY tresspass all the time at work. My proffession (Land Surveyor) requires it and the law requires that any owner or tenant grants me access without undo delay. So, while I agree with your emotional response, the facts are that I and many other "tresspassers" am not criminals but, instead we have the legal right to enter your property as needed to conduct our work and you have the legal responsibility to grant me access. If you attept to stop me from doing my job, you can and will be arrested. If you use phyiscal violence while trying to stop me, I will defend myself with whatever means I have at my disposal. Yes, I have had to have land owners physically restrained and almost taken into custody by the local LEOs while I tresspassed on their land. I have heard of LEOs taking people into custody and telling the surveyor to "hurry up because, we can only hold him for X hours" too. So, be careful how you handle tresspassers. Yea, I always attempt to get prior permission when feasable and use these laws as a last resort. I really hate intruding on others but, the job has to be done.

Im sure you are required to inform the land owner of your presence before conducting your business, if nothing, at least for your own saftey. What you are describing is not tresspassing the way I think of it, you are required and allowed to be there.

CavTrooper
08-22-2011, 3:27 PM
And what happens when you abandon your property in the middle of my neighborhood? Do I just leave your rotting corpse of a home and lot as-is so that it destroys the neighborhood or do I rehabilitate it and maintain it? If I do the latter do I not deserve some compensation?

There are legal channels that must be pursued before you take it upon yourself to vandalize my property. Without my permission or some sort of legal order, you should be charged for tresspassing and billed for the vandalism.

CavTrooper
08-22-2011, 3:28 PM
Depends on what you mean by "trespassing." I go through a neighbor's piece of land several times a week to reach a piece of land where I hunt. It's not fenced, it's got no "No trespassing" signs, and it has a well-travelled path going through it. That's not trespassing. I know I'm going through someone else's property, but what I am doing is just following common easement laws, not trespassing.

What you are doing is tresspassing.

odysseus
08-22-2011, 3:30 PM
Depends on what you mean by "trespassing." I go through a neighbor's piece of land several times a week to reach a piece of land where I hunt. It's not fenced, it's got no "No trespassing" signs, and it has a well-travelled path going through it. That's not trespassing. I know I'm going through someone else's property, but what I am doing is just following common easement laws, not trespassing.

Depending on a particular property's access being dependent on traversing another for example, easement is not a free "pass" to just go over other people's property to get to a place you want to. Though arguments can be made over paths which have been in common use for a long time, a property owner can just fence up an area of his and say take another way, and be good with it. Right now you are probably just running through on another's good will, unless of course it truly is an easement for access.

James Hetfield of Metallica just went through this, and though people fought him, he was legally right and able to do it. He did end up giving away some to quell the public issue and for good will being as wealthy as he is he could afford to do so. However he was legally right and legally positioned to close it off.

CSACANNONEER
08-22-2011, 4:05 PM
Depends on what you mean by "trespassing." I go through a neighbor's piece of land several times a week to reach a piece of land where I hunt. It's not fenced, it's got no "No trespassing" signs, and it has a well-travelled path going through it. That's not trespassing. I know I'm going through someone else's property, but what I am doing is just following common easement laws, not trespassing.

No such thing. Either you have an easement or you don't. If you can prove to a judge that you've met certain requirements, you can be granted (not sure if that's the right word) an easement against the landowner's will. But, there is no law in Ca which automatically give you an "easement".

CSACANNONEER
08-22-2011, 4:09 PM
Im sure you are required to inform the land owner of your presence before conducting your business, if nothing, at least for your own saftey. What you are describing is not tresspassing the way I think of it, you are required and allowed to be there.

We are not "required" to always give notice just, "when practical". I try not to "give notice" but instead, I try to ask "permission" first. You know the old adage about catching more flies with honey than vinegar, don't you? It usually works well for me.

a1c
08-22-2011, 4:09 PM
What you are doing is tresspassing.

Nope. Land is unfenced and uncultivated. I'm not hunting there, I'm not discharging any firearm, and there are no "No trespassing" signs posted. I'm definitely not trespassing.

odysseus
08-22-2011, 4:13 PM
Nope. Land is unfenced and uncultivated. I'm not hunting there, I'm not discharging any firearm, and there are no "No trespassing" signs posted. I'm definitely not trespassing.

Yes, but if the landowner comes out and tells you or as you mentioned put up signage, you are. In all context you probably are, but just not notified as such - not uncommon though and usually not a big deal for unfenced areas. Your position of talking about it like it was a right of yours in the context of easement is a dubious assertion and indicates a particular mindset you seem to have on the issue, which I have seen you assert in the past here as well regarding property rights.

CSACANNONEER
08-22-2011, 4:16 PM
Nope. Land is unfenced and uncultivated. I'm not hunting there, I'm not discharging any firearm, and there are no "No trespassing" signs posted. I'm definitely not trespassing.

By the definition of the word, you are, in fact, tresspassing. You may be legally tresspassing or illegally tresspassing but, you are tresspassing!

a1c
08-22-2011, 4:31 PM
By the definition of the word, you are, in fact, tresspassing. You may be legally tresspassing or illegally tresspassing but, you are tresspassing!

The definition of the word implies a legal meaning. I am NOT legally trespassing.

Yes, but if the landowner comes out and tells you or as you mentioned put up signage, you are. In all context you probably are, but just not notified as such - not uncommon though and usually not a big deal for unfenced areas. Your position of talking about it like it was a right of yours in the context of easement is a dubious assertion and indicates a particular mindset you seem to have on the issue, which I have seen you assert in the past here as well regarding property rights.

But that's key here: the landowner never came out to tell me he doesn't want me there. If he did, yes, I would be trespassing. If he did put up signs, I would be trespassing. None of those things happened. He most likely knows I often walk through this bit of his property through this 200 feet trail, but has never bothered telling me I shouldn't. Given the local topography, that trail has probably been there for decades, if not longer.

You should not make any assumptions regarding my views of property rights - you do not know me, and you have no idea who I am, or what my views are on the subject in general. I'm following the law. And if you think that by your own definition you have never "trespassed", then you are probably mistaken.

Kid Stanislaus
08-22-2011, 4:32 PM
Its good that a mad redneck owner can't shoot u without a warning in the middle of an open field which he owns a small portion of.

Yeah, ya gotta constantly be on the lookout for them mad redneck land owners!!;)

CSACANNONEER
08-22-2011, 4:41 PM
The definition of the word implies a legal meaning. I am NOT legally trespassing.



You are tresspassing. Ifyou are not doing so illegally, then, you are legally tresspassing. But, if you do not feel your actions are legal then, you are illegally tresspassing. It's that simple. Since you are not traversing a legal easement which you have claim to, what would you call it?

a1c
08-22-2011, 4:46 PM
You are tresspassing. Ifyou are not doing so illegally, then, you are legally tresspassing. But, if you do not feel your actions are legal then, you are illegally tresspassing. It's that simple. Since you are not traversing a legal easement which you have claim to, what would you call it?

First of all, read the CA statutes regarding trespassing. You will see it is precisely defined. I am not legally trespassing.

Second, I don't intend on doing so, but I could totally decide to establish a prescriptive easement on that part of the property I am going through several times a week, and that its owner never uses.

You seem to believe that unless you have a written or utility easement to cross or use someone's property, you are automatically trespassing. Things are not that simple. There are lots of other factors at play here.

CSACANNONEER
08-22-2011, 4:50 PM
First of all, read the CA statutes regarding trespassing. You will see it is precisely defined. I am not legally trespassing.

Second, I don't intend on doing so, but I could totally decide to establish a prescriptive easement on that part of the property I am going through several times a week, and that its owner never uses.

You seem to believe that unless you have a written or utility easement to cross or use someone's property, you are automatically trespassing. Things are not that simple. There are lots of other factors at play here.

You're right, it's not alway that simple to get a presciptive easement.

If you are not "tresspassing" what would you call traversing another's property with any legal right to do so?

a1c
08-22-2011, 5:00 PM
You're right, it's not alway that simple to get a presciptive easement.

If you are not "tresspassing" what would you call traversing another's property with any legal right to do so?

Right there, in your question, you establish a flawed premise. I don't need a "legal right" to cross someone's unfenced, unsigned property. You have probably done so yourself many times while hiking, mountain biking or hunting, without even knowing it. It's not trespassing unless certain specific conditions are met.

E Pluribus Unum
08-22-2011, 7:20 PM
Then it wouldn't work. If the property is already fenced off, and if someone else pushes it out, it's trespassing. Doesn't qualify - at least not in California.

Prove it.

If I am a land owner and I fence off my property, and my neighbor tears down my fence and builds his own, encompassing my property, if I don't go back every 5 years to make sure that has not happened, how can I prove what he did? In reality, if I don't check every 5 years, this could happen.


Right there, in your question, you establish a flawed premise. I don't need a "legal right" to cross someone's unfenced, unsigned property. You have probably done so yourself many times while hiking, mountain biking or hunting, without even knowing it. It's not trespassing unless certain specific conditions are met.

This.

It is not the burden of the public to bring a transit, and a plot map, to make sure he avoids private property.

It is the obligation of the landowner to fence his borders and post no trespassing signs. If it is not fenced, and or is not posted, trespassing only occurs after the owner asks him to leave, and he refuses to do so.

English common law. Been this way for hundreds of years, maybe a thousand years.

We fought a revolution to separate ourselves from "English common law." Why the hell are we bound by it today?

And what happens when you abandon your property in the middle of my neighborhood? Do I just leave your rotting corpse of a home and lot as-is so that it destroys the neighborhood or do I rehabilitate it and maintain it? If I do the latter do I not deserve some compensation?

We are not talking about abandonment. There are already city ordinances in place to prevent abandonment in your neighborhood. Also, if it's abandoned, the county will sell it off on a tax sale.

sfpcservice
08-22-2011, 8:46 PM
All the articles I've read on prescriptive easement state that documentation is not needed for the easement to exist. I just interpret that to mean you may have to argue the easement in court either after you've been asked to leave or have been arrested for trespassing.

I've been dealing with this a bit in my area as well. There is a road in my county that runs on a ridgetop and is located on private property. The county has had a 40' wide easement on that ridgetop since the 1890's. I contacted the county surveyor regarding this road because it is posted no trespassing. The county surveyor, in writing, has told me the public has a prescriptive easement along this road because it has been using the road since the 1890's and it is assumed the intent of the actual easement (which doesn't exactly follow the current path of the road) was to establish access along that road. Therefore, the signs have no legal weight and the public has an absolute right to use that road.

Meplat
08-22-2011, 9:08 PM
The definition of the word implies a legal meaning. I am NOT legally trespassing.


The definition of the word implies a legal and/or moral meaning. But I see no reason to believe you were doing anything immoral either.

Meplat
08-22-2011, 9:27 PM
We fought a revolution to separate ourselves from "English common law." Why the hell are we bound by it today?


No. We fought a revolution to separate ourselves from the British Crown. Partly due to the fact that the Crown was in violation of English common law!:rolleyes: