Fraley v. Minger
2005 WL 1427656, 829 N.E.2d 476, 2005 Ind. LEXIS 539 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To acquire title by adverse possession, a claimant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the common law elements of control, intent, notice, and duration for the statutory period, and must also satisfy the statutory requirement of having paid property taxes on the disputed land, with only a limited exception for substantial compliance in minor boundary disputes.
Facts:
- In 1955, Clarence and Eva Minger purchased a 24-acre farm in Ripley County, adjacent to a 2.5-acre undeveloped tract of land.
- The Mingers' sellers and a subsequent neighbor, Truman Belew, both stated they did not own the 2.5-acre tract, leading the Mingers to believe it was unclaimed.
- Starting in 1956 and continuing for over 40 years, the Mingers used the tract as their own by pasturing cattle, building a fence, cutting firewood, selling timber, and using it for family recreation like camping and hunting.
- The Mingers' neighbors and friends believed the Mingers owned the disputed tract.
- In 1996, the disputed tract was included in a deed conveying land from the Belew family to Clarence E. Fraley.
- After 1994, but before Fraley acquired the deed, Eva Minger inquired about possibly purchasing part of the tract from the Belew family.
- The Mingers paid property taxes on their own 24-acre farm, but there was no evidence they ever paid taxes on the disputed 2.5-acre tract.
Procedural Posture:
- Clarence and Eva Minger filed a quiet title action in state trial court against Clarence E. Fraley.
- The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the Mingers.
- Fraley appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for a trial.
- After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Mingers, awarding them fee simple title to the disputed tract.
- Fraley, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Mingers.
- The Mingers, as appellees in the prior appeal, petitioned for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party establish title by adverse possession when they satisfy the common law elements of ownership for the statutory period but fail to pay, or substantially comply with the requirement to pay, property taxes on the disputed tract as required by statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Dickson, J.
No. A claimant fails to establish title by adverse possession if they do not comply with the statutory requirement to pay property taxes on the disputed land. While the Mingers satisfied the common law elements of adverse possession—rephrased by this court as control, intent, notice, and duration—their claim fails because they did not meet Indiana's statutory requirement to pay taxes on the property. The court reaffirmed its prior holding in Echterling, which allows for 'substantial compliance' with the tax statute in cases of minor, good-faith boundary disputes, but it explicitly rejected subsequent appellate decisions that had waived the tax requirement entirely if the owner had other forms of notice. Because this case involved a whole 2.5-acre parcel, not a minor boundary line mistake, and the Mingers presented no evidence they paid or believed they were paying the taxes on it, they did not substantially comply with the statute and therefore could not acquire title.
Concurring - Sullivan, J.
No. While concurring in the result that the Mingers' claim fails due to non-payment of taxes, this opinion disagrees with the majority's method of reaching that conclusion. Instead of relying on the doctrine of legislative acquiescence to uphold the 'substantial compliance' exception from Echterling, the court should have overruled Echterling entirely. The statute is clear and unambiguous, and the court's duty is to enforce its plain language, which requires that an adverse possessor must have 'paid and discharged all taxes' on the land. The judicially created exception in Echterling is contrary to the legislature's clear mandate and should be eliminated.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the doctrine of adverse possession in Indiana by both modernizing the common law elements and reining in judicial exceptions to the statutory tax payment requirement. By synthesizing the traditional, multi-part common law test into a more intuitive four-part framework (Control, Intent, Notice, Duration), the court provided a clearer standard for future cases. Critically, the decision curtails the erosion of the tax payment statute by reaffirming the narrow 'substantial compliance' exception for minor boundary disputes from Echterling while explicitly disapproving of a line of cases that had waived the requirement if other notice was present. This holding makes it substantially more difficult to succeed on adverse possession claims for whole parcels of land where the claimant has not actually paid the property taxes.
