Sylvester C. Dimmick and Lizzie E. Dimmick deeded the land to their three sons, plaintiff, defendant, and Jonathan M. Dimmick, as joint tenants. Jonathan M. Dimmick, in turn, executed a joint tenancy deed to Plaintiff and Defendant.

For several years Plaintiff and Defendant carried on farming operations on the land and maintained a joint bank account. On June 16, 1937, Plaintiff's check on the joint account for the purchase of a tractor was returned by the bank with the notation that the account had been closed. Plaintiff went to see Defendant, and Defendant admitted that he had withdrawn the entire balance.

According to Plaintiff, Defendant then stated that he would not have anything more to do with the ranch; that he was not going to put any more money or effort into the venture; and that if Plaintiff wished to carry on, he could do so with Defendant's full permission, but he (Defendant) was finished with it. Plaintiff understood that there was a total abandonment of the property by Defendant and told him that it was "O.K.," he was out, and that he himself would carry on alone.

Defendant testified, however, that he never intended to give up his title to the land but only wished to afford Plaintiff the opportunity to farm the property and retain the profits, on condition that he would pay the expenses of operation.

From that time, Plaintiff farmed the property and cared for it at his sole expense. He paid off the encumbrance, financed the annual growing of crops, and improved the land by fencing it, painting the house, and adding a room, cupboards, and other fixtures. He also drilled three irrigation wells, and added pipelines, a tank tower, a 2,500-gallon tank, a pressure system, and a new electric hot water tank. He built a shop and garage, scraped the land, and put in cement headgates. The cost to Plaintiff of the improvements was more than $10,000, part of which was paid from money he earned elsewhere than on the ranch.

During the time he occupied the land, Plaintiff signed an oil lease. Defendant also executed it later, but all the money derived from the lease was retained by Plaintiff.

After 1937, Defendant never contributed anything toward the trust deed payments, improvements, taxes, or operations of the ranch, and he never demanded an accounting of any kind. However, Defendant did keep some of his empty beehives on part of the land without objection by Plaintiff.

In 1962, Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant to quiet title on the farm based on adverse possession. The burden is upon the claimant to prove every necessary element: (1) Possession must be by actual occupation under such circumstances as to constitute reasonable notice to the owner. (2) It must be hostile to the owner's title. (3) The holder must claim the property as his own, under either color of title or claim of right. (4) Possession must be continuous and uninterrupted for five years. (5) The holder must pay all the taxes levied and assessed upon the property during the period. (Laubisch v. Roberdo, 43 Cal.2d 702, 706 (1954))

Defendant argues that it is a fundamental rule that each tenant in common has a right to occupy the whole of the property. The possession of one is deemed the possession of all; each may assume that another in exclusive possession is possessing for all and not adversely to the others; and consequently one tenant in common does not, merely by exclusive possession, gain title by adverse possession against the others. Such possession will be presumed to be by permission and rightful, unless notice is brought home to the others that it has become hostile. Here, Defendant argues, no such notice was given by Plaintiff that the possession was adverse, hostile, and at the exclusion of the Defendant.

As a member of the jury, based on the evidence provided above, what party is best supported by governing law? Please provide the basis of law and the supporting facts to support your answer. What facts, if different, would change your mind as juror as to the outcome of this trial?