Galiher v. Johnson
432 P.3d 502 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an adverse possession claim, a claimant's objective acts of open, notorious, hostile, and continuous possession over the statutory period can outweigh the claimant's subsequent contradictory statements about having had permission. A trial court's factual finding that such statements were not credible and were made for self-preservation will be upheld on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.
Facts:
- In 1977, Vicki Johnson and her then-husband purchased Lot 21, adjacent to Lot 23, and began using a corner of Lot 23 for overflow parking.
- Dennis Johnson married Vicki in 1986, and their family's use of the disputed area of Lot 23 increased significantly for parking, storage of materials, and placement of a camper, shed, and walkway.
- The Johnsons maintained the disputed area by clearing weeds and removing snow, and around 2002-2003, made permanent structural changes to their home's entryway to accommodate their primary parking on the disputed property.
- The Johnsons never sought nor received express permission from any of the eight owners who held title to Lot 23 between 1978 and 2013.
- In March 2013, Louise Galiher purchased Lot 23 and, after a survey, discovered the Johnsons' belongings and use of her property.
- When confronted by Galiher in April 2013, Dennis Johnson stated that previous owners had given him permission to use the property and asked Galiher for permission to continue the use.
- Johnson repeated his claim of having had permission from prior owners to a county compliance officer, a deputy sheriff, and a mutual acquaintance.
- A week or more after the initial conversation, Johnson informed Galiher he would not remove his things and would continue his use, asserting he had a right to be there.
Procedural Posture:
- Louise Galiher filed a suit to quiet title to Lot 23 against the Johnsons in the Teton County District Court.
- The Johnsons filed a counterclaim seeking to quiet title to the disputed portion of the lot based on adverse possession.
- After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the Johnsons, granting them title by adverse possession.
- Galiher appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
- In the first appeal (Galiher I), the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ruling that the district court had erred by refusing to consider Mr. Johnson's out-of-court statements about having permission.
- On remand, the district court considered all the evidence, including the statements, and again entered judgment in favor of the Johnsons.
- Galiher (appellant) again appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
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 claimant's objective, long-term use of property that satisfies the elements of adverse possession overcome their subsequent statements to the true owner and others that their use was permissive?
Opinions:
Majority - Kautz, Justice
Yes. A claimant's objective acts demonstrating adverse possession can overcome their later contradictory statements suggesting permissive use. The court deferred to the trial court's role as the finder of fact in weighing conflicting evidence. The trial court was entitled to find that the Johnsons' decades of open, continuous, and exclusive use of the property—including making permanent alterations to their own home in reliance on that use—objectively demonstrated a hostile claim of right. The trial court's conclusion that Mr. Johnson's later statements about having permission were 'untrue' and motivated by self-preservation to avoid conflict was a permissible inference based on the totality of the evidence. An appellate court will not set aside such factual findings unless they are 'clearly erroneous,' which was not the case here. The court also rejected the 'neighborly accommodation' defense because there was no communication or relationship between the Johnsons and the prior landowners from which such an accommodation could be inferred; mere failure to object does not constitute permission.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the primacy of objective acts over subjective statements in adverse possession claims, particularly when those statements are made after a dispute has arisen. It underscores the high degree of deference appellate courts grant to trial courts' factual findings regarding intent and credibility. The ruling clarifies that a 'neighborly accommodation' defense requires more than a landowner's passive acquiescence; it necessitates some evidence of communication or a mutual understanding. This case serves as a caution that a claimant's inconsistent statements can create a factual dispute, but they will not automatically defeat a claim that is strongly supported by decades of conduct.
