Chaplin v. Sanders

676 P.2d 431 (1984)

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

This concerns a dispute over a strip of land owned of record by P. In 1957 or 1958, Sanders’ (D) predecessors in interest, decided to clear their land of woods and overgrowth and set up a trailer park. They cleared the woods up to a deep drainage ditch and opened a park and installed a road for purposes of ingress and egress to the park. The owner of the encroached parcel had a survey conducted whereupon he discovered the true boundary. He then informed the builders that their driveway encroached upon his land. Two years later, the parcel was sold to the Gilberts. The 1962 recorded contract of sale contained a provision informing the Gilberts of the encroachment. The parcel was sold to a Mr. French, who had no actual notice of the true boundary line. The western parcel changed hands once again before D purchased it in 1976. None of these subsequent owners were made aware that their road encroached but were informed rather casually that the boundary was the drainage ditch. D was given actual notice of the contract provision, but purportedly mistook the road to which it referred. The road remained in continuous use in connection with the trailer park. The area between the road and the drainage ditch was also used by trailer park residents for parking, storage, garbage removal and picnicking. Grass was mowed up to the drainage ditch and flowers were planted in the area by trailer personnel and tenants. In the spring of 1978, D installed underground wiring and surface power poles in the area between the roadway and the drainage ditch. In May of 1978, P purchased the still undeveloped eastern parcel without the benefit of a survey. P had a survey done and drew up plans for industrial buildings and then filed a quiet title action. The trial court determined that 1967, the date of acquisition by Mr. French, was the appropriate time from which to compute the 10-year period necessary to establish adverse possession. It then found that D had satisfied each element of adverse possession with regard to the road and its 3-foot shoulder but had not satisfied their burden of proving open and notorious possession with regard to the property between the roadway and the ditch. The trial court then issued a mandatory injunction requiring D to remove their underground wiring and surface power poles at an estimated cost of $20,000. The Court of Appeals found that, due to D's' actual notice, the requirement of hostility had not been satisfied for either parcel. It, therefore, reversed the trial court's holding and remanded to give P everything.