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

This case concerns a driveway built on a 20-foot strip of land just east of that boundary -- a strip everyone assumed was on Lot 5, but was actually on Lot 6. When Haliburton bought Lot 5 in 1970, Lot 6 was owned by her brother's family, the Buddes. Both families used the driveway on the disputed strip. The driveway led to a garage built on both lots, which Haliburton used for parking and storage. Although Haliburton was no longer living at the time of trial, there was testimony that family members all presumed mistakenly that the driveway and garage belonged to her Lot 5. In 1995, the Buddes sold Lot 6 to D. In 2001, Haliburton sold Lot 5 to P, who already owned Lot 4 to the west. During the latter transaction, a survey revealed that the driveway was not a part of Lot 5, so P secured a quitclaim deed conveying any interest Haliburton might have acquired in the strip by adverse possession. When D learned of the survey, they obtained a permit and erected a fence around the strip. This suit ensued. A jury found the strip had passed by adverse possession to Haliburton, and thence to P. The First Court of Appeals affirmed, holding in a divided opinion that Haliburton's use of the strip and everyone's mistaken belief that she owned it was legally sufficient evidence of adverse possession. D appealed.

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

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

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