Yes. Anderson-Tully now legally owns the land. The court said that for wild, undeveloped land, you don't have to live on it or build on it to claim it. By clearly marking the border, using the land for business (logging), and acting like the owner for much longer than the required 10 years without being stopped, the company showed everyone it was claiming the land. This process is called 'adverse possession,' which is like 'squatter's rights,' and the company met all the rules to win.

Yes, the company (Anderson-Tully) is now the legal owner of the land. They used the land openly and acted like the owners for more than ten years, and no one from the Scott family tried to stop them during that time. This long-term use made them the new legal owners. We looked at six important things: 1) Anderson-Tully acted like they owned the land, 2) they used the land without asking permission, 3) everyone could see they were using the land, 4) they used it non-stop for more than ten years, 5) only they used the land, and 6) no one fought with them about it for a long time. They painted blue lines on trees, cut down trees, and let people hunt there. Everyone in the area knew they were treating the land like it was theirs. The Scott family didn't try to stop them until it was too late. So, even though the Scott family thought they owned the land, Anderson-Tully became the real owner by using it for so long without anyone stopping them.

I mostly agree with the decision that Anderson-Tully owns the land because they showed clear signs like blue paint on the fence and regular timber cutting that made everyone think it was their property for many years. However, I don’t fully agree with how the majority ignored the fact that Scott did raise a concern in 2003 and 2007. I believe these moments could mean the use wasn’t completely uncontested. So, even though I go along with the final decision, I have some doubts about overlooking those objections.

Yes. A claimant can acquire title to wild and undeveloped land through adverse possession by performing public acts of ownership that are consistent with the character of the land for the statutory ten-year period. The court found Anderson-Tully met all six elements of adverse possession. Its actions of painting a visible boundary line with its recognizable company paint, repainting it over decades, harvesting timber three times, and issuing hunting leases constituted sufficient acts to put the record owner on notice. These acts were actual, hostile (without permission), open and notorious, continuous for well over ten years, exclusive, and peaceful. The court emphasized that for 'wild' land, the quantum of proof for possessory acts is lower than for improved property, and Anderson-Tully's claim had already ripened into full title long before Scott first objected in 2003.

Yes, Anderson-Tully Company did acquire title to the disputed twenty-acre tract through adverse possession. I find that the evidence overwhelmingly supports a finding of adverse possession in favor of Anderson-Tully. The company has proven each element of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence. First, Anderson-Tully staked a claim of ownership by marking its borders with recognizable blue paint, cutting and harvesting timber, and issuing hunting licenses. Second, their possession was actual and hostile, as they used the property without seeking permission from anyone. Third, their use was open, notorious, and visible, as evidenced by the blue paint markings and public acts of timber harvesting. Fourth, their possession was continuous and uninterrupted for more than ten years, starting from 1969 when they marked the property lines. Fifth, their possession was exclusive, as no evidence was presented that anyone other than Anderson-Tully used the property after 1969. Finally, their possession was peaceful, with no objections raised until well after the adverse possession claim had ripened. The actions of Anderson-Tully, such as marking the property with blue paint, harvesting timber, and issuing hunting licenses, established a clear claim of ownership that was recognized and unchallenged by the community and the Scott family for over ten years. Therefore, I affirm the chancellor's decision that Anderson-Tully acquired title to the disputed twenty-acre tract through adverse possession.

I join in part with the majority in affirming the chancellor’s decision that Anderson-Tully acquired title by adverse possession because the record clearly shows that the company marked its boundaries with blue paint, harvested timber, and exhibited continuous and exclusive use of the disputed twenty-acre tract from 1969 until 2010. However, I differ from the majority in my assessment of the Scotts’ intermittent objections. I note that the evidence of the Scotts’ 2003 and 2007 actions, which suggested a possible contest of possession, could have raised questions about the uninterrupted and peaceful nature of Anderson-Tully’s use. While the majority discounts these challenges on the grounds that the adverse claim had already ripened, I believe that such interventions, however limited, should be given more evidentiary weight because they indicate that the issue of title was at least partly contested. Thus, while I concur with the outcome, my partial concurrence is based on a more cautious appraisal of the interruption in possession.

Scott v. Anderson-Tully Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot