Ann Tagawa, another neighbor of Muhammad Salim and his wife has submitted a very interesting letter to the Daily Camera. She was a witness in the recent trial between the Salims and Dana Marshall and has some interesting insight to share.
Her opinion of the judges ruling
For those who have read the judge’s ruling, it is important to know that there are many other examples of bias, distortion and fabrication.
She describes her relationship with the Salims since the time Dana Marshall took “her” fence down (Dana is the neighbor that recently lost the adverse possession II case)as more than cordial…
It is unclear at present what the status of my property is because I was not named in the lawsuit. In fact, during the almost two- year period since Dana Marshall removed her fence, the Salims and I and my partner Jim, with whom I live, have been quite friendly. The Salims have invited us over for dinner on two occasions; they invited us on raft trips, and we had them over as guests to two parties. At no time did the Salims ever indicate that they believed the back fences (mine or Dana’s) belonged to them. They were naturally upset that Dana had removed the fence, and we sympathized with them. Almost anyone who has lived for a long period of time in a particular neighborhood has had problems with neighbors, but if the neighbor does something with property that is legally his or hers, we often just have to accept that.
However, she heard from the desposition that Mr. Salim said he would consider an adverse possession case against her if she took her fence down as well. This lead her to discuss the issue with him and try to work out a mutual agreement. This is described below. They haven’t talked sense.
In late March of this year, I was informed that in his deposition, Mohammed Salim had been asked if he was trying to claim my fence as his, as well as Dana’s. He tried to evade the question but was told that he had to answer yes or no. Finally, the question was posed as, “If Ann Tagawa removed her fence, would you try to claim it as yours?” Mr. Salim answered yes. As soon as I got this information, Jim and I went to talk to the Salims. Mohammed said that he had never expected a question like that, but when forced to answer, he realized that in order to pursue adverse possession of Dana’s fence, he would have to claim mine as well because they are contiguous fences behind his property line. Jim and I suggested a meeting among us with Dana to try again to resolve this without going to court. The Salims seemed to be very enthusiastic about this idea. I said I would try to get Dana to agree to put the fence back up if Mohammed would make it clear that he was not trying to take my fence. I asked for a letter stating this, and he said he would get one from his attorney. About a week later, Mohammed called me and said he had a document from his lawyer, which would be a “fence agreement.” The letter, however, was written as a document that asked me to agree to change my fence to be a “common fence” that Mohammed and I would mutually maintain going forward. I immediately called Mohammed and said that this document was not anything I would ever sign because I would be giving up ownership of my land and the fence on it. Mohammed said he was afraid that if I sold my property that a future owner would do what Dana had done and take down the fence, and he would lose more of his privacy. I said that I liked the fence being there, and for that reason had not taken it down all these 32 years, but that I could never prevent a future owner of my property from doing that. Mohammed said that he could understand why I would not want to sign the agreement. That was the last time we spoke.
She testified in the court case between Mr. Salim and Dana Marshall. Here’s her report and overall conclusion about adverse possession.
I was not allowed to give any of the above testimony in court. The only testimony I was able to give was to answer questions regarding my maintenance of my fence and what I saw going on behind the fence all these years. I have a shed and a redwood deck built on top of it in the southeast corner of my yard. The shed has been there since 1971 and the deck has been there since 1978. Both are nailed to my fence. There is a ladder that goes up to the deck. I testified that I rarely saw the Salims on the north side of the creek on their property and that little maintenance of that area was done except for chipping wood from tree branches. But lo and behold, at the trial, some photos were submitted of some posts that Mohammed claims to have put in behind my fence. I don’t know if this action can be used to adversely possess my property in the future, but if so, all homeowners need to know that a neighbor can clandestinely do some repair work on your property and then say it is his. This is why the adverse possession law should be abolished. When you buy property, the surveys, the title and the title insurance should guarantee that the land you pay property taxes on (in my case, for the past 32 years), is yours.
Ms. Tagawa definitely has a very low opinion of the judge in this case (read the whole article to get more). I’m not at that point yet. A couple of observations:
1. It appears that Mr. Salim definitely believes his property is “more special” then his neighbors property is.
2. Why do people keep going to court for adverse possession and having trials with a judge. Why don’t they request a jury trial? I sure would.
added 6/23: click on the “land grab II” label below to find other blog postings on this issue.
