Greene v. Jones
490 N.E.2d 776, 1986 Ind. App. LEXIS 2471 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Routine residential yard maintenance activities, such as mowing, fertilizing, and planting grass, are insufficient to establish the element of notorious possession required for an adverse possession claim. To be sufficiently notorious, the claimant's use of the land must be so conspicuous that it is generally known by the public or gives clear notice to the owner that a stranger is asserting dominion over the land.
Facts:
- In 1970, Robert and Janet Jones purchased Lot No. 2, believing their western boundary was marked by flags set approximately seven feet west of the true property line.
- The Joneses proceeded to plow, grade, plant grass, and periodically mow and fertilize this seven-foot strip of land.
- In 1974, the Joneses purchased a portion of Lot No. 10, located behind their property, and similarly maintained an additional seven-foot strip they mistakenly believed was theirs.
- At some point after 1972, a previous owner of the adjacent lot erected a wooden fence on the mistaken property line, but this fence stood for only seven years at most.
- In 1981, Richard and Linda Greene purchased the adjoining property, Lot No. 1 and the remaining portion of Lot No. 10.
- In 1983, the Greenes commissioned a survey which revealed the true property line, showing the seven-foot strip maintained by the Joneses actually belonged to the Greenes.
- The Greenes informed the Joneses of the correct boundary line after the survey was completed.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert and Janet Jones filed an action in a Jefferson County trial court to quiet title to a strip of land, claiming ownership by adverse possession against Richard and Linda Greene.
- The trial court found in favor of the Joneses, quieting title to the disputed strip in their name.
- The Greenes, as the defendants and record owners, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
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 performing routine yard maintenance, such as mowing, fertilizing, and planting a single small tree on a disputed strip of residential land, constitute possession that is sufficiently actual, visible, and notorious to establish a claim of adverse possession against the record titleholder?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Miller
No. The actions of the Joneses are insufficient to establish adverse possession. For the disputed area on Lot No. 10, the Joneses had only possessed the land for nine years (1974-1983), which is short of the ten-year statutory period required. For the disputed area on Lot No. 1, the Joneses' acts of mowing, fertilizing, and planting grass are considered sporadic and periodic acts of ownership that are insufficient to constitute notorious possession. Citing McCarty v. Sheets, the court reasoned that such activities are not conspicuous enough to give notice to the public or the owner that a claim of dominion is being asserted, unlike the erection of permanent improvements such as a garage or concrete curbing. Because the fence was not in place for the full ten-year period and the other acts were insufficient, the Greenes' record title is not defeated.
Dissenting - Presiding Judge Young
Yes. The Joneses did acquire title by adverse possession to the strip adjoining Lot No. 2. The sole purpose of the notoriety requirement is to put the record owner on notice of an adverse claim. Where the record owner has actual notice, as the Greenes and their predecessors did, the possession does not need to be so conspicuous as to be known by the entire community. The Greenes knew the Joneses claimed and used the property up to the mistaken line. Therefore, the Joneses' acts of improving the area by grading and planting grass and trees should be considered sufficient acts of ownership to establish their claim.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'notorious' possession standard in the context of residential property disputes, particularly those arising from mistaken boundaries. By holding that routine yard maintenance is insufficient, the court raises the evidentiary bar for adverse possession claimants, requiring more permanent and visible acts like building structures. This decision strengthens the position of record titleholders against claims based on ambiguous or minor uses of their land, emphasizing that title will not be extinguished based on 'flimsy and uncertain evidence.' The dissent, however, highlights a critical tension in the doctrine: whether notoriety is an independent, public-facing requirement or simply a mechanism to ensure the true owner receives notice of the adverse claim.
