Smith v. Krebs
768 P.2d 124, 1989 Alas. LEXIS 6, 1989 WL 7478 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A grant of summary judgment is improper in an adverse possession claim when conflicting evidence, such as contradictory affidavits, creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the claimant's use of the property was hostile or permissive.
Facts:
- In 1954, Bob and Patricia Krebs purchased Tract A, a parcel of land that included an existing gravel driveway.
- In 1960, Everett and Theta Musgrove purchased Lot 8, an adjoining tract of land.
- Sometime in 1960, Bob Krebs and Everett Musgrove jointly built a meathouse on a portion of the Musgroves' Lot 8 (the 'disputed parcel').
- In 1967, the Krebses made additional improvements, including a lawn and a smokehouse, on the disputed parcel.
- The Musgroves sold Lot 8 in 1966, and after another sale in 1969, Howard and Shirley Smith purchased Lot 8 in 1972.
- At no point did the Krebses have record title to the disputed portion of Lot 8.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1987, Patricia Krebs filed a quiet title action against Shirley Smith in the Alaska superior court (trial court).
- Smith filed an answer and a counterclaim for trespass and nuisance.
- Both Krebs and Smith filed motions for summary judgment.
- The superior court granted partial summary judgment to Krebs for the driveway and lawn areas.
- The court then appointed a special master to determine the boundaries for the remainder of the disputed parcel.
- Following the special master's report, the superior court entered a final judgment awarding the entire disputed parcel to Krebs.
- Smith (appellant) appealed the 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:
Did the superior court err in granting summary judgment on an adverse possession claim when there was conflicting affidavit testimony regarding whether the claimant's use of the land was with the owner's permission?
Opinions:
Majority - Rabinowitz, Justice
Yes, the superior court erred. A grant of summary judgment is inappropriate when a genuine issue of material fact exists, and such an issue was created by the conflicting affidavits regarding the nature of the Krebses' possession. To establish adverse possession, a claimant's use must be, among other things, 'hostile' to the true owner, meaning the claimant acted as if they owned the land. While there is a presumption that use of another's land is permissive, this can be rebutted. Here, Roy Musgrove's affidavit stated that it was understood the meathouse was on Musgrove land but that Krebs would be using it, suggesting permissive use. Conversely, Theta Musgrove's affidavit stated she and her husband never gave permission because they believed the Krebses already owned the disputed parcel, suggesting hostile use. This direct conflict on the material issue of permission precludes summary judgment and requires a trial to resolve the factual dispute.
Analysis:
This case underscores the high bar for obtaining summary judgment when a claim's essential elements, such as 'hostility' in adverse possession, depend on the resolution of factual disputes. It reinforces the principle that summary judgment is a tool for resolving purely legal questions, not for weighing conflicting evidence or determining credibility. By reversing the lower court, this decision emphasizes that even a single piece of conflicting evidence, like an affidavit based on decades-old memories, can be sufficient to create a 'genuine issue of material fact,' thereby preserving the parties' right to a full trial on the merits.
Unlock the full brief for Smith v. Krebs