## Facts

- The dispute involved adjacent residential-subdivision lots in the Russellhurst subdivision of Santa Clara County, California.
- In 1957, the McCormicks’ predecessors (the Heavisides) built a home on their lot and used an adjoining lot for a driveway.
- The neighboring lot was unimproved and was owned by the Appletons’ predecessors (the Crowes).
- Because of discrepancies between the subdivision map and measurements on the ground, the Heavisides and the Crowes were uncertain about the true location of their shared boundary.
- Each of the prior owners ran informal measurements from different starting points and reached compatible results, after which they orally agreed on a boundary line.
- In 1958, relying on that agreement, Heaviside constructed a split-rail fence along the agreed boundary for much of the shared line and made other improvements, including plantings.
- The Heavisides later conveyed their property to James and Donna McCormick, and the Crowes conveyed their lot to Hartley and Esther Appleton, with the fence still visible as the apparent boundary.
- In 1961, several subdivision owners jointly financed a new survey (the Wolff survey). The McCormicks and others contributed to the cost but did not agree to accept the survey as controlling.
- The Wolff survey (later shown to be inaccurate in certain respects) indicated a boundary location that would place a portion of the McCormicks’ home area within the Appletons’ record line.
- The McCormicks filed an action to quiet title. While the case was pending, Hartley Appleton entered the disputed area and knocked down the boundary fence.
- The McCormicks amended their pleadings to seek damages and injunctive relief for trespass and fence destruction; the Appletons denied liability and cross-complained for boundary determination consistent with the 1961 survey and for damages based on an allegedly trespassing water line.
- After a bench trial, the trial court set the boundary at the fence line, enjoined the Appletons from entering the McCormicks’ land, denied relief on the cross-complaint, and awarded the McCormicks $350 compensatory and $500 exemplary damages.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported a finding that the predecessors’ oral boundary-line agreement, made to settle uncertainty and marked by a fence and improvements, fixed the boundary and bound successors in interest.
2. Whether the agreed-boundary doctrine required the boundary to be accepted for the full five-year limitations period before it could bind the parties and their successors.
3. Whether the trial court properly rejected the later Wolff survey as controlling and denied the Appletons’ cross-complaint seeking a boundary consistent with that survey.
4. Whether the evidence supported findings of willful trespass and fence destruction justifying injunctive relief and both compensatory and exemplary damages.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the prior owners were genuinely uncertain about the true line, agreed on a permanent boundary, and marked it on the ground by building a fence and making improvements.
- The agreed boundary was binding on successors in interest; the Appletons took subject to the boundary fixed by their predecessors’ agreement.
- The court rejected the argument that the boundary agreement was ineffective until the five-year period associated with adverse possession or limitations had run; an agreed boundary may be effective without waiting for that period.
- The court upheld the trial court’s refusal to treat the 1961 Wolff survey as determinative, particularly given proof of error and the existence of the earlier fixed boundary.
- The court upheld the injunction and the awards of $350 compensatory damages and $500 exemplary damages based on the Appletons’ trespass and intentional removal of the fence during the dispute.

## Legal Principles

- A boundary may be fixed by agreement when (1) adjoining owners are uncertain or in dispute about the true boundary, (2) they agree (expressly or by conduct) on a line intended to be permanent, and (3) they accept that line on the ground, commonly by monuments or improvements such as a fence.
- Once a valid agreed boundary is established and marked, it runs with the land and binds successors who take title with the boundary monument apparent.
- The agreed-boundary doctrine is distinct from adverse possession; its effectiveness does not depend on waiting for the five-year prescriptive period.
- A later survey showing a different record line does not displace an established agreed boundary, especially where the survey is shown to be erroneous and the parties did not consent to be bound by it.
- In trespass cases, exemplary damages may be awarded when the defendant’s conduct is malicious, oppressive, or in conscious disregard of the plaintiff’s rights; intentional destruction of a boundary fence during a known dispute can support such an award.
- On appeal, boundary findings and related damage awards are sustained if supported by substantial evidence when the record is viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment.

## Conclusion

McCormick v. Appleton holds that when uncertain neighbors settle a boundary by agreement and mark it with a fence and related improvements, that boundary controls and binds later purchasers even if a subsequent survey suggests a different record line; the court also affirmed injunctive relief and compensatory and exemplary damages where a successor willfully trespassed and tore down the fence during the pending quiet-title dispute.


McCormick v. Appleton, 225 Cal. App. 2d 591 (1964)