Anderson v. Cold Spring Tungsten, Inc.
458 P.2d 756, 1969 Colo. LEXIS 698, 170 Colo. 7 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For purposes of adverse possession, hostile intent does not require violence, a dispute with the owner, or a deliberate intent to take another's property; rather, it is established by the possessor's intent to claim exclusive ownership of the property, demonstrated by using it as a true owner would.
Facts:
- In 1930, William J. Doherty purchased a cabin from the Boulder Rotary Club that was situated on land to which Cold Spring Tungsten, Inc. held the record title.
- From 1930 until 1966, Doherty and his family, including the other defendants, used the cabin for summer weekends and sometimes for a month or longer.
- Throughout this period, the defendants made improvements, kept the cabin in repair, locked its doors, and shuttered its windows when not in use.
- The defendants posted signs at times to warn off trespassers.
- The defendants used a portion of the land around the cabin for toilet facilities and for trash and garbage disposal.
- Mr. Doherty paid the real estate taxes on the property every year since his entry in 1930.
- The defendants testified that they believed they were the actual owners of the property on which the cabin was located.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1966, Cold Spring Tungsten, Inc. filed a quiet title action against June B. Anderson, James A. Anderson, and William J. Doherty in the Boulder District Court (a trial court).
- The defendants filed a counterclaim, seeking a judgment establishing their own title to a portion of the property based on adverse possession.
- The trial court found that the defendants were entitled to the cabin itself but not the land upon which it was situated.
- The trial court denied the defendants' counterclaim and entered a judgment quieting title in favor of the plaintiff, Cold Spring Tungsten, Inc.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Colorado.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a party's actions of exclusively using, maintaining, and improving a cabin on another's land for the statutory period, under the subjective belief that they own the property, satisfy the 'hostile' and 'exclusive' elements required for a claim of adverse possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Pringle
Yes, the defendants' use of the property satisfies the elements of adverse possession. The requirement that possession be 'hostile' does not mean violence or a dispute is necessary; hostility arises from the possessor's intention to claim exclusive ownership. The defendants' uncontradicted testimony that they believed they owned the property, combined with their actions of maintaining, improving, and securing the cabin, demonstrates the requisite hostile intent. The trial court erred in concluding that a 'peaceable' entry could not be hostile. Furthermore, possession can be 'exclusive' even with casual public intrusion on the larger tract of land, so long as the claimant exercises the control that a reasonable owner would under the circumstances, which the defendants did by asking picnickers to leave the cabin area and securing the cabin itself.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'hostile intent' element of adverse possession in Colorado, shifting the focus from an objective act of aggression to the subjective intent of the claimant. It establishes that a good-faith, albeit mistaken, belief of ownership is sufficient to satisfy the hostility requirement. The case also provides a flexible standard for 'exclusivity' and 'actual occupancy,' especially for unfenced or recreational properties, basing the determination on the nature of the land and the actions a typical owner would take, rather than on an absolute exclusion of all others.
