Hollander v. World Mission Church of Washington, D.C.
255 Va. 440, 498 S.E.2d 419 (1998)
Rule of Law:
A claimant's possession of land under a mistaken belief about the true location of a boundary line is sufficiently adverse and hostile to support a claim of adverse possession, provided the claimant intended to possess the land up to a definite and visible line on the ground.
Facts:
- The World Mission Church of Washington, D.C. (the church) held record title to a parcel of land in Fairfax County.
- Carolyn Hollander owned the adjoining property.
- For a period exceeding 15 years, Hollander and her predecessors in title used a strip of the church's land.
- This use occurred under the mistaken belief that their property boundary extended to a visible line of trees at the edge of the woods on the church's property.
- Throughout this period, Hollander and her predecessors consistently mowed, gardened, and otherwise maintained the disputed strip as part of their residential yard.
- A predecessor in title told a third party who gardened on the strip from 1972-1975 that his property line ran to the line of woods.
- Representatives for another predecessor owner told a potential buyer in 1981 that the property extended to the line of woods.
Procedural Posture:
- The World Mission Church of Washington, D.C. filed a motion for judgment against Carolyn Hollander in a Virginia trial court to recover possession of a strip of land.
- Hollander responded, claiming title to the land by adverse possession.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found that all elements of adverse possession had been established except for adverse or hostile intent.
- The trial court ruled that because the possession was based on a mistake, it was not adverse, as there was no intent to oust the true owner.
- The trial court entered a final judgment for the church.
- Hollander, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
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 mistaken belief regarding the true boundary line defeat the element of hostile intent required for adverse possession if the claimant intended to possess the land up to a definite and visible physical line on the ground?
Opinions:
Majority - Senior Justice Whiting
No. A mistaken belief regarding a boundary line does not defeat the hostile intent required for adverse possession if the claimant intended to claim ownership up to a definite line on the ground. The practical test is not what the possessor would have intended if they had known the truth, but whether they had a positive and definite intention to occupy, use, and claim the land up to a particular line on the ground. Here, the evidence showed that Hollander and her predecessors did not base their claim solely on their deed, but on their belief that their property ran to the visible tree line. Their continuous maintenance and use of the land up to that specific line demonstrated the requisite hostile intent, distinguishing this case from precedents where a claimant only intended to possess to the true line, wherever it might be. The court distinguished its prior holding in Chaney v. Haynes, noting that the claim there was based solely on a mistaken belief of a recorded right, whereas here, the claim was based on a belief that a physical landmark constituted the boundary.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'hostile intent' requirement in mistaken boundary adverse possession cases within Virginia. It solidifies that the inquiry focuses on the objective acts of the claimant—whether they intended to possess up to a clear, physical boundary—rather than their subjective belief about the true boundary's location. This strengthens claims for adverse possession where property has been used up to a visible line like a fence or trees for the statutory period, even if that use began with an honest mistake. The ruling makes it more difficult for record title holders to defeat an adverse possession claim by arguing the possession was not 'hostile' merely because it was based on a mistake.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Hollander v. World Mission Church of Washington, D.C. (1998)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"