“Boundary By Agreement” Doctrine Does Not Apply.

The parties own contiguous pieces of property with a common boundary of approximately 1,300 feet. Plaintiff’s fence does not run all the way to the boundary line, and defendant’s almond orchard encroaches on a portion of plaintiff’s property. Defendant contended the fence established the boundary under the doctrine of “boundary by agreement.” The trial court quieted title in plaintiff’s favor, and the appellate court affirmed, noting that “missing from defendants’ case, among other things, is an essential element—an agreement.” Martin v. Van Bergen  (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 6; September 6, 2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 84.