Wilcox v. Estate Of Hines

849 N.W.2d 280 (2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps purchased a parcel of property from Ronald and Mary Soma (Soma). A 25-foot-wide strip of land (the strip) runs between the eastern border of P's property and Lake Delton. At the time Ps filed their complaint, the southeast portion of the strip was owned by The Estate of William Newman (Newman). Newman originally created Lake Delton in 1927 by constructing a dam on Dell Creek, and at that time he owned the entire lakefront strip, as well as what is now the P property. In 1933, Newman transferred ownership of the northeast portion of the lakefront strip and a portion of P's property to Ralph Hines (Hines) and transferred the remainder of the Wilcox property to Hines in 1935. Newman also granted Hines the right to foot traffic across the southeast portion of the lakefront strip. In 1935, Hines sold P's property to Henry C. Titus (Titus) but retained ownership of the northeast portion of the lakefront strip. Hines also granted Titus the right to foot traffic across the entire lakefront strip. In 1963, the Somas purchased P's property from Titus and, as part of the sale, were granted the right to foot traffic across the entire strip. Ownership of the strip remained with Hines and Newman, and Titus explained to the Somas that P's property did not include the strip. Somas never knew who actually owned the lakefront strip. Following the deaths of both Hines and Newman, ownership of the lakefront strip was transferred to the Estate of Ralph Hines (D) and the Estate of William Newman. These estates retained ownership of the strip at the time the complaint, in this case, was filed. The Somas owned P's property for 40 years. They made numerous improvements to the strip while understanding that they did not own that land. They installed and removed a pier on the strip every year that they owned P's property. They also cleared out undergrowth, added rocks, planted trees and flowers, repaired a cement wall, installed riprap, and maintained the lawn. Somas put up a 'No Trespassing' sign and regularly told trespassers that they were on private property and instructed them to leave. The Somas never asked permission from either of the Estates to make these alterations to the strip. They did ask and receive permission from the Ducks, a company that provides boat tours of Lake Delton and Dell Creek because they mistakenly believed that the strip was owned by the Ducks. In 1982, the Somas granted Ducks an easement across their property to bring trucks and equipment to the strip. Ducks cleared out trees and undergrowth and placed rocks on the strip. Somas sought and received permission from Ducks to rearrange the rocks, place peat and grass seed on the strip, and put up a fence with a gate and an additional 'No Trespassing' sign. Ps purchased the property in 2002. Somas informed Ps that the strip was not part of the sale, but that Ps would have a right of foot traffic across it. Ps maintained and developed the lakefront strip in the years following their purchase, adding improvements such as piers, a patio, flowers, trees, a fire pit, and steps. On August 26, 2011, P brought a claim for adverse possession against the Estates (Ds). The court found that Ps, in conjunction with their predecessors met their burden of proof on the open and visible elements of adverse possession. The court determined that Ps had failed to establish the elements of exclusive, hostile, notorious, and continuous possession. The claim was dismissed. The court of appeals reversed the decision. It held that several cases appear to hold that the subjective intent of a possessor-that is, whether the possessor intended to claim title-is an irrelevant factor in determining the merits of an adverse possession claim. The court of appeals concluded that it is 'a possessor's actions, not a possessor's belief' that matters when considering the hostile nature of the occupation. The court of appeals recognized an exception to this rule: a party's permissive use of property is relevant in cases where the permission is granted by the true owner of the property. The Somas' permission to use the lakefront strip came from a non-owner and was therefore irrelevant. The Estates (Ds) appealed.