Pham

Pham v. Vo CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 5, 2014B246989California4,778 words

Opinion

Opinion

facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.” [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. . . .’” (Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126.)1

1 Plaintiff does not contend in the present case that the court abused its discretion in not granting leave to amend. 3

DISCUSSION

The Supreme Court in a series of opinions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries ruled that in cases claiming prescriptive rights, including adverse possession cases, that the continuous and uninterrupted possession of property for a period of five years, a necessary element for a claim of a prescriptive right, was tolled when litigation was filed either by the owner or the adverse possessor seeking a determination as to ownership of the property in question. (Alta Land & Water Co. v. Hancock (1890) 85 Cal. 219, 228; Kirsch v. Kirsch (1896) 113 Cal. 56, 59; In re Estate of Richards (1908) 154 Cal. 478, 488; Knoke v. Swan (1935) 2 Cal.2d 630, 632.) In 1953 Justice Roger Traynor authored a Supreme…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.