Demand letter sample California - jamesbond00’s diary

CCP § 338(b) did not bar an action to enforce water rights, even if plaintiffs had suspicions that defendant had trespassed on their property between 1990 and 1995 and failed to sue until 2002, because where a trespass was continuing, but not necessarily permanent, the statute did not bar an action until three years after the last act of trespass. Baugh v. Garl (CalifLaw 2d Dist. Mar. 13, 2006), 137 CalifLaw 4th 737, 40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 539, 2006 CalifLawCALIFLAW 334.Nakase law wade deals with demand letter sample California.

District court properly dismissed as time barred under CCP § 338(b) an insurer’s state law claims, seeking the recovery of insurance payments made to its insured for environmental response costs the insured incurred in cleaning up pollutants released on its property, because the suit was not filed until more than three years after the insured knew or should have known of the pollution on its property, not when the insurer reimbursed the insured for its response costs. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc. (9th Cir. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013), 710 F.3d 946, 2013 U.S. App. CALIFLAW 5198, cert. denied, (U.S. Jan. 13, 2014), 571 U.S. 1156, 134 S. Ct. 906, 187 L. Ed. 2d 833, 2014 U.S. CALIFLAW 327.

Building Encroachments

The unintentional encroachment of a building overhanging the premises of an adjoining owner constitutes a nuisance, not a trespass, and an action to abate it brought more than three years after the original entry is not barred. Kafka v. Bozio (Cal. Sept. 7, 1923), 191 Cal. 746, 218 P. 753, 1923 Cal. CALIFLAW 502.

An action for damages for the encroachment of a building upon the plaintiff’s land, which is a trespass, is barred three years after such trespass was committed. Rankin v. De Bare (Cal. Nov. 26, 1928), 205 Cal. 639, 271 P. 1050, 1928 Cal. CALIFLAW 582.

The encroachment of a building, obviously intended to be permanent, upon the soil of another, is a permanent trespass, and a cause of action based thereon is barred in three years. Bertram v. Orlando (CalifLaw Feb. 27, 1951), 102 CalifLaw 2d 506, 227 P.2d 894, 1951 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1335.

With regard to permanent encroachment, such as construction of building partly on land of another, entire cause of action for past as well as prospective damages accrues when trespass occurs, but if nuisance may be discontinued at any time, or if encroachment is abatable, nuisance is continuing and each repetition or continuance amounts to another wrong giving rise to new cause of action. Mattos v. Mattos (CalifLaw 1st Dist. July 9, 1958), 162 CalifLaw 2d 41, 328 P.2d 269, 1958 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1826.

Where one party so constructs permanent building that it encroaches on land of another, the trespass is regarded as permanent in nature. Troeger v. Fink (CalifLaw 2d Dist. Dec. 10, 1958), 166 CalifLaw 2d 22, 332 P.2d 779, 1958 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1364.

Buildings which had been encroaching on plaintiff’s property for twelve years, constructed where they were with no thought of moving them elsewhere, one being erected on concrete piers and another on permanent continuous foundation, were of permanent nature and action to have them declared continuing trespass and nuisance was barred by this section. Castelletto v. Bendon (CalifLaw 2d Dist. June 13, 1961), 193 CalifLaw 2d 64, 13 Cal. Rptr. 907, 1961 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1668.