Case Name: Romero v. Garcia
Plaintiff/Appellee: Ida Romero
Defendant/Appellant: Mr. and Mrs. Antonio Garcia (former father/mother-in-law of Romero)
Citation: 546 P.2d 66 (N.M. 1976)
Issue: Whether the plaintiff could claim the land under adverse possession when the deed failed to describe a specific piece of property.
1947 – Plaintiff purchased the 13 acres in dispute from defendant father but defendant mother failed to join in the conveyance. (The 13 acres were part of the 165 acres that defendant father had purchased in 1923).
A home was built on the land and the deed was recorded in 1950. The plaintiff and deceased husband lived in the home until 1962, when he died, and the plaintiff moved out to Colorado and remarried.
The defendants argued that:
The void deed was inadequate for color of title. This is erroneous because a deed is sufficient for color of even though it is void because it lacks the signature of a community member.
The deed’s description was inadequate for adverse possession because it failed to describe a specific piece of property. A deed is not void for want of proper description if, with the deed and with extrinsic evidence on the ground, a surveyor can ascertain the boundaries. An indefinite and uncertain description may be clarified by subsequent acts of the parties
Procedural History: The court found for the plaintiff.
Holding: The subsequent acts of the parties in erecting a house and pointing to the land were sufficient to ascertain the boundaries.
Case Name: Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom
Plaintiff: Nome 2000
Defendant: Charles and Peggy Fagerstrom
Citation: 799 P.2d 304 (Alaska 1990)
Issue: Whether the defendants acquired the southern portion of the land in dispute when their only activities included the use of the pre-existing trails and picking up litter.
Key Facts: 7 ½ acres in dispute. Record title which includes the disputed parcel is held by Nome 2000. In 1978 the defendants built a cabin on the north end of the disputed parcel. The plaintiff admits that from the time the cabin was place until it filed this suit (1987), the defendants adversely possessed the north end of the disputed parcel.
Procedural History: Nome 2000 filed suit to eject defendants. The defendant’s counterclaimed that through their use of the parcel they had acquired title by adverse possession.
Holding: The defendant did not acquire the property through adverse possession on the southern portion of the land because absent color of title, only property actually possessed may be acquired by adverse possession.
Judgment: The plaintiffs did not adversely possess the southern portion of the land in dispute. The case was remanded to the trial court in order to determine the extent of the defendant’s acquisition (northern portion).
Alaska adverse possession:
1. Ten year period
3. Open and notorious
4. Exclusive and hostile to the true owner
Case Name: Community Feed Store, Inc. v. Northeastern Culvert Corp.
Key Facts: Community Feed Store operates a small wholesale and retail animal feed business. Defendant, Northeastern Culvert Corp. is a neighboring business.
At issue is a parcel of land to the north of the plaintiff’s principal building (approximately 60 x 90 feet), covered with gravel. 28 feet of this is owned by the plaintiff, the rest is owned by the defendant. The plaintiff’s suppliers and customers used this area for loading and unloading.
Defendant purchased its land in 1956 but was not until 1984, after a new survey, that it was established that the bulk of the gravel area actually belonged to the defendant. The defendant then erected a barrier to prevent cars and trucks to use this area for loading and unloading. Plaintiff filed for declaration of a prescriptive easement.
The trial court concluded that the plaintiff’s claim of a prescriptive easement failed for two reasons:
1. Plaintiff failed to prove with sufficient particularity the width and length of the easement
2. Any use of the area in question by the plaintiff or its customers was made with the permission of the fee owner. (through public use)
Procedural History: The trial court rejected the claim and entered judgment for the defendant on its counterclaim for ejectment. Plaintiff appealed. Appellate Court found that the trial court erred in making two findings of fact.
Plaintiff met its burden by establishing the general outlines of the easement with reasonable certainty. The plaintiff did not need to establish the minute details of the interest. The plaintiff established that adverse use began no later than 1929 and lasted until at least 1956. There was no showing that the defendant had opened his land to public use.
Case Name: Brown v. Gobble
Appellee/Plaintiff: Gary S. Brown and Mitzi Brown
Appellants/Defendant: David L. Gobble and Sue Ann Gobble
Citation: 474 S.E.2d 489 (W. Va. 1996)
Issue: Whether the circuit court erred in not granting the defendant the tract of land through adverse possession when the defendant proved each of the required elements needed for adverse possession under the doctrine of “tacking.”
- “Tacking” – to make up the required time period one may add up the time that previous adverse possessors claimed the property
Procedural History: The circuit court granted judgment for a strip of land to the plaintiffs saying that the defendants failed to show their ownership by way of adverse possession. The court believes that because of the stakes involved in an adverse possession case, that “clear and convincing” evidence is needed.
Facts: The defendants purchased the land in 1985 and the two foot wide tract was on their side of the fence that divided the two properties and visually appeared to be the defendant’s property. The real estate agent and deed stated that their land ran up to and included the fence. Plaintiffs purchased their property in 1989 and knew that, through a survey, they owned the two foot wide tract; however, they did nothing to show ownership until they brought the suit in 1994.
Holding: The circuit court either misunderstood or misapplied the defendant’s theory. The defendants did not claim that their actual possession of the property is sufficient to establish adverse possession but that their predecessors met all the requirements of adverse possession and under the doctrine of tacking, the predecessors’ interest was passed onto the defendants.
Rule of Law: One who seeks to assert title to a tract of land under the doctrine of adverse possession must prove each of the following elements for the required statutory period (ten years):
- That he has held the tract adversely or hostilely*;
- That the possession has been actual;
- That is has been open and notorious (sometimes stated in the cases as visible and notorious);
- That possession has been exclusive;
- That possession has been continuous;
- That possession has been under claim of title or color of title
*Where one by mistake occupies land up to a line beyond his actual boundary, believing it to be the true line, will not defeat his right to claim that he holds the land adversely or hostilely.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded.