Herrell v. Casey
1993 WL 54396, 609 N.E.2d 1145, 1993 Ind. App. LEXIS 150 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for adverse possession is established when a party's use of the land goes beyond mere maintenance activities, such as mowing, and includes more permanent, manifest, and notorious acts like building structures, gardening, and storing property, thereby providing constructive notice to the true owner.
Facts:
- In 1972, Harold and Wanda Casey purchased property adjoining that of Ronald and Janet Herrell, believing an existing fence marked the property boundary.
- Starting in 1973, the Caseys began landscaping and leveling the disputed strip of land up to the fence line.
- In 1975, the Caseys constructed a storage shed on a concrete pad within the disputed area.
- From 1973 through 1988, the Caseys continuously mowed the grass, planted and maintained a garden and fruit trees, and stored wood and large gas drums on the strip.
- In 1984, the Caseys replaced the original shed with a garage built upon the same spot and moved the old shed to a new location, also within the disputed strip.
- In 1987, the Herrells removed the fence.
- A 1990 survey initiated by the Herrells revealed that the fence line had been on their property, and that the Caseys' garage and shed encroached by 0.5 feet and 4.3 feet, respectively.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald and Janet Herrell filed a quiet title action against Harold and Wanda Casey in the Howard Superior Court (a trial court).
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Caseys.
- The Herrells appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court), which reversed the summary judgment, holding that maintenance activities alone were insufficient for adverse possession.
- The case was remanded to the Howard Superior Court for further proceedings.
- Following a full trial on the merits, the trial court again found for the Caseys, awarding them the disputed property.
- The Herrells, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals, with the Caseys as appellees.
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 landowner's continuous maintenance activities combined with the construction of permanent structures and other regular uses on an adjoining parcel of land, under the mistaken belief of ownership, satisfy the notorious and exclusive elements required for adverse possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, Judge
Yes. A landowner's actions satisfy the elements of adverse possession. While mowing and maintenance alone are insufficient, combining these activities with more substantial and permanent uses like building a shed and garage, planting a garden, and storing personal property provides sufficient notice to a reasonable owner of an adverse claim. These acts were manifest and notorious enough that actual notice was not required. Furthermore, the Caseys' continuous and sole use of the property, to the exclusion of the Herrells and all others, established that their possession was exclusive. The combination of these activities over the statutory period was sufficient to establish title by adverse possession.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard for adverse possession, particularly the 'notorious' element. It establishes that while singular, minor activities like mowing may not suffice, a cumulative 'bundle' of activities, especially those involving permanent structures, can satisfy the requirement. The ruling reinforces that the test for notice is objective—what a reasonable owner should have known—rather than subjective—what the owner actually knew. This precedent guides future courts to look at the totality of the circumstances and the combined effect of the adverse possessor's actions over time, rather than evaluating each act in isolation.
