Richard S. Wilcox v. Estate of Ralph Hines
2014 WI 60, 849 N.W.2d 280, 355 Wis. 2d 1 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a possessor's subjective intent not to claim title, such as express disclaimers of ownership or seeking permission to use the land from a perceived owner, is relevant to rebut the presumption of hostility that arises when all other elements of an adverse possession claim are met.
Facts:
- In 1963, Ronald and Mary Soma purchased a property near Lake Delton and were explicitly told that an adjacent 25-foot-wide lakefront strip was not included in the sale.
- For nearly 40 years, the Somas used and improved the lakefront strip by installing a pier, clearing undergrowth, maintaining a lawn, and posting 'No Trespassing' signs.
- The Somas mistakenly believed a local tour boat company, the Wisconsin Ducks, owned the lakefront strip.
- The Somas granted the Ducks an easement across their property in 1982 to access the lakefront strip.
- After the Ducks made improvements, the Somas sought and received permission from the Ducks' manager to make their own improvements, such as rearranging rocks, planting grass, and erecting a fence.
- The Somas consistently and expressly disclaimed ownership of the lakefront strip.
- In 2002, the Somas sold their property to Richard and Susan Wilcox, informing them that the lakefront strip was not part of the sale but that they had a right of foot traffic across it.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard and Susan Wilcox sued the Estate of Ralph Hines and the Estate of William Newman in Sauk County Circuit Court (the trial court) seeking title to the property by adverse possession.
- Following a bench trial, the circuit court dismissed the Wilcoxes' claim, finding they failed to establish hostile, exclusive, and continuous possession.
- The Wilcoxes, as appellants, appealed the circuit court's decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court, holding that the Somas' subjective intent and their seeking of permission from a non-owner were irrelevant.
- The titleholders, as petitioners, sought review from the Wisconsin Supreme Court (the state's highest court), which was granted.
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 predecessor in interest's express disclaimer of ownership and seeking of permission to use property from a non-owner defeat the 'hostility' or 'claim of title' element of an adverse possession claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Gableman, J.
Yes, a predecessor's express disclaimer of ownership and permissive use can defeat the hostility element of an adverse possession claim. The statutory 'claim of title' requirement, which is equivalent to the common law 'hostility' element, means the possessor must have the subjective intent to claim ownership. While hostility is presumed when the other elements of adverse possession (open, notorious, continuous, exclusive use) are met, this presumption is rebuttable. Evidence that the possessor expressly disclaimed ownership or sought permission for use—even from a non-owner—directly rebuts this presumption by showing a lack of intent to claim title. The Somas' actions of asking for permission and stating they did not own the land demonstrated they lacked the necessary hostile intent, breaking the chain of possession required for the Wilcoxes' claim.
Dissenting - Abrahamson, C.J.
No. The dissent agrees with the court of appeals' reasoning, which held that the possessor's actions, not their subjective belief, are what matter. The majority's holding introduces uncertainty into adverse possession law by focusing on the possessor's state of mind rather than their observable use of the land.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the role of subjective intent in adverse possession claims in Wisconsin. It moves away from a purely objective test based on the physical characteristics of possession, as some prior cases suggested. The court establishes that while hostility is presumed from open, notorious, continuous, and exclusive use, this presumption is not conclusive. The ruling allows true owners to defeat an adverse possession claim by introducing evidence of the possessor's own statements or actions acknowledging superior ownership, even if that acknowledgment was directed at the wrong party. This decision makes it more difficult for a claimant to succeed by 'tacking' onto a predecessor's possession period if that predecessor did not have a consistently hostile intent.
