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

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

On August 16, 1961, Ps' predecessors-in-interest, Dean Pond, Sr., and Irene Pond purchased 16 acres in Park County. The following month, Dean and Irene entered into an agreement to transfer 12 of those 16 acres to Frederick Schlack. In 1992, Ps received the 4 acres of property through an executor's deed. In 1997, Frederick Schlack's 12 acres of property were transferred to his son F. Randall Schlack. In 1961-1962, Dean and Frederick built a fence around P's property, separating the two neighboring properties. They built the fence along what they believed was the boundary line based on a survey conducted in 1961 or 1962. After the fence was built, Ps used a shed already located on the Subject Property to store horse feed, horse tack, a rototiller, lawn chairs, and picnic tables. Ps built additional structures on the Subject Property, including an outhouse and a tent frame. Ps used the tent frame for a hunting camp and as a place to eat by placing a canvas over the frame. Ps took several photos as they were building the tent frame, some of which depicted Frederick and Dean standing by the tent frame, indicating 'Mr. Schlack could have possibly helped build [the structures].' Approximately twenty years later, in the 1980s, the Ps enclosed the tent frame, using old barn wood and other materials, and then in the 2000s, they installed wood flooring and insulation. Also, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Ps rebuilt the outhouse and constructed an additional shed on the Subject Property. Ps used the Subject Property and structures for family gatherings, picnics, a hunting camp, and horseback riding. Friends parked their campers and stayed on the Subject Property. At one point, Ps parked a mobile home on the Subject Property, and one family member lived there for approximately nine years. They had a well drilled on their property, and water from the well was used to maintain and care for the Subject Property. Ps planted grass seed and repaired the fence when necessary. Ps disposed of items on the Subject Property, including a refrigerator, a pile of bed frames, old hoses, mattresses, and carpet. Ps removed these items in May 2023. In 2008, a survey of the 12-acre parcel was conducted with the intent to place the 12-acre property on the market. It revealed that the original 1960s survey contained errors and incorrectly placed the Subject Property on the Ps' side of the boundary fence. The 12-acre parcel was listed for sale, and the listing noted the 'boundary line issue is being addressed . . . survey to be re-done, acreage is estimate.' He further noted on the listing that the sale was contingent upon a boundary line adjustment. After 13 years of the property being on and off the market, it was sold to Ds in January 2021 without resolving the boundary dispute, and Ds purchased and closed cognizant of the ownership dispute over the Subject Property. Ps filed this complaint against Ds on July 28, 2022. They claimed title to the Subject Property through adverse possession and sought to quiet title to the Subject Property. Ds counterclaimed and argued they are the record title owners, and Frederick granted Ps permission to use the Subject Property. After completing discovery, Ps and Ds filed competing motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ps. Ds appealed.

The applicable rule of law for 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.