Norgard v. Busher Et Ux
349 P.2d 490, 80 A.L.R. 2d 1161, 220 Or. 297 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Possession of another's land under the mistaken belief of ownership satisfies the element of hostility required for a claim of adverse possession.
Facts:
- In 1931, Edward and Cary Norgard purchased a parcel of land from the Larsons, who retained an adjacent northern parcel.
- A woven wire fence, which the parties believed marked the true boundary, was actually located approximately 410 feet north of the true line, on the Larsons' property.
- In 1934 or 1935, the Norgards extended this fence eastward, continuing to operate under the mistaken belief that the fence line was their northern boundary.
- The Norgards continuously used the disputed strip of land south of the fence for farming and pasturing cattle as if it were their own.
- In 1946, the Montgomerys (successors to the Larsons) conveyed a small part of the disputed land to the Norgards, and both parties continued to assume the fence was the true boundary for the remaining land.
- In 1950, the Montgomerys sold their remaining land north of the fence to the defendants.
- The Norgards' use of the land up to the mistaken fence line continued uninterrupted.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (the Norgards) filed a suit to quiet title against the defendants in an Oregon trial court.
- The trial court entered a decree in favor of the Norgards, quieting title in them to the disputed strip of land.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
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 person's possession of land under the mistaken belief that they own it satisfy the 'hostility' element required for a claim of adverse possession?
Opinions:
Majority - O’Connell, J.
Yes, possession under a mistaken belief of ownership satisfies the element of hostility in an adverse possession claim. The court adopts the view that the possessor's objective acts of occupying and controlling the land up to a visible boundary are what matter, not their subjective, hypothetical intent had they known the true facts. This 'pure mistake' doctrine holds that the intent derived from physical occupation overrides the intent to claim only what is described in a deed. The court explicitly overrules prior Oregon cases that required a possessor to intend to claim the land even if they knew it belonged to another. Here, the Norgards' continuous farming and pasturing of the land up to the fence, which they believed to be the boundary, was an open and hostile assertion of ownership, regardless of their mistake.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Oregon's adverse possession doctrine by explicitly adopting the 'pure mistake' rule, aligning the state with the majority of jurisdictions and the prevailing view among legal scholars. It rejects the older, more subjective inquiry into whether a possessor would have claimed the land if they knew the truth, which was often difficult to prove. By focusing on the objective physical acts of possession, the court provides a more predictable standard for resolving boundary disputes, giving greater weight to long-standing, visible lines of occupation over the lines described in a deed.
