Here is a sort of transcript of the case Joannou v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1644364.html. In short, there was a piece of land that had been gradually migrating due to Earth movements over a few decades. It ended up in a section claimed by the city. Joannou had bought the land after it had migrated into City territory, and the City claimed Joannou could not own the land. Joannou and other homeowners sued on the basis of the Cullen Earthquake Act, which said that in the event of a disaster moving the land, the boundaries would be withdrawn. The Court ruled that the Cullen's Act did not apply, and part of their reasoning was that the appellants could have done things to make the houses immovable, like anchoring them to the bedrock. They had other reasoning like citing the dictionary definition of disaster was that is was sudden, not gradual, and that there had been an earlier case similar to this.
But let's say that one of the appellants could not afford to take those measures like anchoring. I have two questions:
There was one appellant, and this appellant could not afford to take those measures. Would the court have ruled in the appellants favor, assuming the other reasoning held true?
If the answer to (1) is Yes, then what if there were multiple appellants, and one of those appellants could not afford. Would an exception be made for that appellant?