The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Howard (P) and Kunto (D) had homes in a summer resort area under deeds that did not match the land that each was occupying. D’s house stood on one lot, and his deed describe the adjacent lot. The error was discovered 28 years after it was made. P conveyed his deed to the occupant of another person who held the adjacent lot in exchange for their deed, which was the lot occupied by D. P now had in his possession a deed describing the land occupied by D. P then filed for quiet title. D claimed that the land was his, arguing that he had achieved adverse possession by tacking. D and his successors had adversely possessed the land for the required time period. P sued and obtained a judgment quieting title in the land. Until P obtained the conveyance from Moyer, neither Moyer nor any of his predecessors ever asserted any right to ownership of the property actually being possessed by d and his predecessors. At the time that this action was commenced D has been in occupancy of the disputed land less than a year. The trial court said that D had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence a continuity of possession to permit tacking of the adverse possession of defendants to the possession of their predecessors. D appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.