Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom
799 P.2d 304 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To acquire title by adverse possession, the claimant's use of the land must be continuous, open and notorious, exclusive, and hostile for the statutory period, with the sufficiency of these acts depending on the character of the land in question; for rural land, this means using it as an average owner of similar property would.
Facts:
- Nome 2000 held record title to a seven-and-a-half-acre tract of rural land overlooking the Nome River.
- Beginning around 1966, Charles and Peggy Fagerstrom brought building materials to the northern portion of the parcel with the intent to build a cabin.
- Around 1970, the Fagerstroms staked out a larger area that included the disputed parcel, built a picnic area, and later, around 1974, built an outhouse and a fish rack on the northern section.
- From mid-July 1974 through 1978, the Fagerstroms parked a camper trailer on the north end of the parcel for the summer months.
- In the summer of 1977, the Fagerstroms built an 8x8 foot reindeer shelter and a 75-foot diameter pen on the north end of the parcel, which remained for about a year.
- Throughout this period, the Fagerstroms used the entire parcel for subsistence and recreational activities like picking berries and fishing, using pre-existing paths that were also used by others, and they occasionally cleaned up litter.
- In the summer of 1978, the Fagerstroms placed a cabin on the northern portion of the parcel.
- Charles Fagerstrom once excluded other campers from the land when he found them burning his firewood.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 24, 1987, Nome 2000 filed suit in the superior court (trial court) to eject Charles and Peggy Fagerstrom from a parcel of land.
- The Fagerstroms filed a counterclaim asserting they had acquired title to the land by adverse possession.
- Following a jury trial, Nome 2000 moved for a directed verdict, arguing the Fagerstroms' evidence was insufficient to establish adverse possession.
- The trial court denied Nome 2000's motion for a directed verdict.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Fagerstroms, finding they had adversely possessed the entire parcel.
- The trial court entered a judgment consistent with the jury's verdict.
- Nome 2000 (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Alaska, challenging the denial of its motion for a directed verdict and the sufficiency of the evidence.
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 claimant's seasonal activities on a parcel of rural land—including placing temporary structures and making minor improvements on one portion while using pre-existing trails for subsistence activities on another—satisfy the elements of adverse possession for the entire parcel?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthews, Chief Justice
No. The claimant's actions satisfied the elements of adverse possession only for the northern portion of the parcel where their use was concentrated and would provide a reasonably diligent owner with visible evidence of their dominion, but not for the southerly portion where their use was limited to activities like using trails and picking up litter. The court reasoned that the standard for adverse possession depends on the character of the land, requiring only that the land be used for the statutory period as an average owner of similar, rural property would use it. For the northern portion, the Fagerstroms' acts—building an outhouse, fish rack, reindeer pen, and seasonally placing a camper—were sufficient to evince exclusive dominion. For the southerly portion, merely using pre-existing trails and picking up litter did not provide visible evidence of an exercise of dominion and control necessary to establish actual possession.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the application of adverse possession elements to rural, undeveloped land used on a seasonal basis. The court rejects a rigid requirement for 'significant physical improvements,' instead adopting a flexible, context-dependent standard based on how an 'average owner' of similar property would act. This decision provides guidance that seasonal use and modest, impermanent structures can be sufficient to establish adverse possession, but it also reinforces the principle that possession must be actual and visible, limiting claims to the area demonstrably controlled by the claimant, not just passively used.
Unlock the full brief for Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom