In what circumstances will a court uphold a finding that the claimant failed to meet his burden of proof in the context of a claim for improper use of the disputed area?

^10. Shoen's reliance on cases such as Case v. Uridge (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 1 is mistaken. There, after noting that the evidence regarding use of the disputed area was "a mass of confusion" (id. at p. 6), the appellate court sustained the trial court's finding that the claimant had failed to meet his burden of proof. (Id. at p. 9 ["it may be that the trial court could have come to a contrary conclusion than here reached, but it was not required to do so as a matter of law under the evidence here presented"].) Like the court in Case v. Uridge, we must defer to the trial court's factual findings.