Hubbard v. Curtiss
1984 Alas. LEXIS 305, 684 P.2d 842 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purpose of establishing adverse possession, the element of hostility is determined by an objective test based on the possessor's actions, not their subjective belief. A possessor's mistaken belief that they hold legal title to the land they occupy does not defeat the hostility requirement.
Facts:
- In the 1940s, the Dahl family sold two adjacent parcels of land, divided by a 'Dock Path', which all subsequent owners believed was the true boundary line.
- The southern parcel, which included a house, was eventually sold to the Rozich family, who in 1951 obtained a patent deed for 'Lot 13'. However, due to a surveying error, the deed's geometric boundaries did not align with the Dock Path, and the house was actually located on the northern parcel, 'Lot 12'.
- Through a series of sales, possession of the house and its surrounding yard (the curtilage) passed from the Roziches to the Boogards.
- In 1967, the Boogards intended to sell the house property to the Nutters, but a bank error resulted in the deed incorrectly describing a different property, USS 2480. The Nutters took possession of the house and its curtilage, unaware of the deed error or the boundary discrepancy.
- In 1969, the Nutters sold the property to George and Nancy Curtiss, repeating the same deed error for USS 2480. The Curtisses took possession of the house and curtilage, believing they owned it.
- In 1974, Margaret Yoss (formerly Boogard) discovered the deed error and realized she still held record title to Lot 13. She offered to exchange deeds with the Curtisses, but they refused.
- In 1978, Yoss sold her interest in Lot 13 to Thomas and Frances Hubbard, who were aware of the boundary dispute and that a survey placed the house on Lot 12.
- The Hubbards attempted to assert control over the house by renting it out, leading to confrontations with the Curtisses and the involvement of State Troopers.
Procedural Posture:
- The Hubbards filed a complaint against the Curtisses in the superior court, Alaska's trial court of general jurisdiction.
- The Hubbards sought to quiet title to Lot 13 and gain possession, while the Curtisses filed a counterclaim seeking title to a portion of Lot 13 by adverse possession.
- Following a trial, the superior court quieted title to Lot 12 in the Curtisses and Lot 13 in the Hubbards.
- The trial court denied the Curtisses' adverse possession claim, ruling that their possession lacked the requisite hostility until November 1974, when the deed mistakes were discovered.
- The Curtisses appealed the denial of their adverse possession claim to the Supreme Court of Alaska.
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 possession of land under the mistaken belief that they are the true owner defeat the element of hostility required for adverse possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthews, Justice.
No. A mistaken belief about ownership does not negate the hostility required for adverse possession; the possessor's objective actions are what control. The court applied an objective test for hostility, stating, 'The question is whether or not the claimant acted toward the land as if he owned it. His beliefs as to the true legal ownership of the land... are all irrelevant.' The trial court erred by focusing on the possessors' subjective intent and finding their possession was permissive until the mistake was discovered. Mere acquiescence by the true owner is not the same as granting permission; a permissive use requires the possessor to acknowledge the owner's superior title. Here, the Curtisses and their predecessors always acted as true owners. Under the doctrine of tacking, the Curtisses could add the Nutters' period of possession to their own. The Nutters' adverse possession began in March 1967, and the ten-year statutory period for adverse possession without color of title was met in March 1977, vesting title in the Curtisses before the Hubbards' attempt to oust them in June 1977.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Alaska's adherence to the objective, majority view on the hostility element of adverse possession, rejecting the minority subjective approach. It clarifies that a good-faith mistake of ownership is not a barrier to an adverse possession claim and, in fact, supports the finding that the claimant acted as a true owner would. The case provides legal certainty for individuals who possess property based on long-standing but incorrect boundary assumptions or flawed deeds. By emphasizing objective conduct over subjective intent, the ruling protects long-term possessors and reduces the significance of old surveying errors in modern property disputes.
Unlock the full brief for Hubbard v. Curtiss