Peters v. Juneau-Douglas Girl Scout Council
519 P.2d 826, 1974 Alas. LEXIS 316 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a claim of adverse possession, the hostility requirement is met by objective evidence of the claimant acting as an owner would, regardless of their subjective belief about title. The exclusivity requirement is met if the claimant's use is of a type that would characterize an owner's use, which does not require the absolute exclusion of all others from the property.
Facts:
- In 1916, Willis M. Peters' uncle, Elijah Sharclane, purchased a building on a section of beachfront property in Tee Harbor.
- The property was informally passed down within the family, first to Peters' other uncle, Jerry Sharclane, and then to Peters himself around 1932.
- For over 40 years, Peters used the property extensively for activities like seal hunting, fishing, boat repair, and gardening.
- Peters and his family built and maintained several structures on the land, including a house, a smokehouse, a well, and a tent platform.
- Peters marked the boundary of his claim with a post and, for a time, a sign indicating his ownership.
- Members of the public, specifically clamdiggers, occasionally used the beach area during low tides, and Peters did not attempt to exclude them.
- Believing he needed official paper title to protect his property for his children, Peters sought help from various officials and, in 1950, met with Nick Bez, an official from the cannery that previously owned the land, who told him to stay on the property.
- In 1969, Peters learned that the Juneau-Douglas Girl Scout Council held the record title to the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Willis M. Peters filed an action in the Alaska superior court (the trial court) against the Juneau-Douglas Girl Scout Council to establish his title to a parcel of real property by adverse possession.
- The case was tried by the court without a jury.
- The superior court found that Peters' use of the land was continuous, open, and notorious, but concluded that he had failed to prove the elements of exclusivity and hostility.
- The superior court entered a judgment in favor of the defendant, the Juneau-Douglas Girl Scout Council.
- Peters, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment 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 use of property meet the exclusivity and hostility requirements for adverse possession if they use the land as an average owner would under the circumstances, even though they permit occasional public use and subjectively believe they must acquire 'papers' to formalize their title?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Connor
Yes, the claimant's use meets the requirements for adverse possession. To satisfy the elements of exclusivity and hostility, a claimant must use the property as an average owner would under the circumstances, without the true owner's permission. The court held that the exclusivity requirement does not demand that a claimant prevent all use of the property by the public; allowing occasional clamdiggers on a beach is consistent with how a hospitable landowner would act and does not defeat the claim. The hostility requirement is judged by an objective standard based on the claimant's actions, not their subjective state of mind. Peters acted as if he owned the land by building structures and using it for his livelihood for decades. His search for 'papers' or his conversation with a former owner's representative did not negate the hostile nature of his possession, as these actions were attempts to confirm a right he believed he already possessed, not to seek permission.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the objective nature of the hostility requirement in adverse possession, divorcing it from the claimant's subjective beliefs or intent. It establishes that a claimant's actions in using the land as an owner are paramount, regardless of whether they mistakenly believe they need permission or have a good-faith or bad-faith claim. Furthermore, the court sets a practical standard for exclusivity, acknowledging that the nature of the property (e.g., a beach) dictates the type of control an owner would reasonably exercise. This precedent makes adverse possession claims more dependent on observable, physical use of land over the statutory period rather than on the claimant's state of mind.
Unlock the full brief for Peters v. Juneau-Douglas Girl Scout Council