In a contentious legal battle over property boundaries, a California appellate court has sided with one landowner in a rural Butte County dispute. The decision, filed on September 25, 2024, by the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, involves an appeal from David R. Giordano against Merle Knuthson-Loomis concerning the rightful ownership and boundary lines between their properties.
The case traces back to a quiet title claim initiated by Giordano in 2018. He sought a prescriptive easement to use a dirt road traversing Loomis's property and aimed to resolve a boundary dispute favorably. Initially, the trial court granted Giordano the easement and ruled in his favor regarding the boundary line. However, Loomis appealed this decision. In April 2022, the appellate court upheld the easement but remanded the boundary issue for retrial.
On remand, the trial court favored Loomis after considering evidence from Hamilton Engineering's survey that established property boundaries based on historical deeds and records rather than proportionate measurements from lost original survey monuments. This decision was contested by Giordano, who argued that due to missing original monuments, the boundaries should be reestablished using proportionate measurement methods as outlined in surveying manuals.
During retrial proceedings, expert testimonies were presented by both parties. Timothy Giordano, testifying for his cousin David Giordano, argued that original survey corners were "lost" and relied on previous surveys using proportionate measurement methods to determine boundaries. Conversely, Brien Hamilton's testimony for Loomis highlighted reliance on historical deeds and existing physical landmarks like fences and driveways to establish boundaries.
The appellate court found Hamilton’s approach more compelling. It determined that sufficient evidence existed to locate obliterated corners without resorting to treating them as "lost," thus validating Hamilton’s survey findings over those proposed by Giordano.
Giordano's appeal contended that without definitive original monument locations or witness testimony confirming such positions, Mr. Hamilton’s survey was insufficient legally. However, the court disagreed, affirming that substantial evidence supported Mr. Hamilton’s conclusions about property lines based on historical documents and physical evidence.
Ultimately, the judgment confirmed Loomis as the lawful owner of disputed areas extending east of New Skyway Road as per Hamilton Engineering's 2020 record of survey (200 R/S 32). The court also directed modifications clarifying ownership details in accordance with these findings while awarding costs on appeal to Loomis.
Representing Giordano were attorneys from unspecified law firms while Loomis had her legal team defending her interests successfully through this complex litigation process under Case ID C099056 before Judges Krause J., Hull Acting P.J., and Feinberg J.