TIEU v. Morgan
265 P.3d 98, 246 Or. App. 364 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oregon law, a person acquires title to land through adverse possession by proving with clear and convincing evidence that their possession was actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous for ten years, and that they had an honest and reasonable belief of actual ownership.
Facts:
- Robert Stevens owned two adjoining residential lots, 3100 and 3200. In 1984, he installed a fence that effectively separated a three-foot-wide strip of land from lot 3100 and incorporated it into the driveway area of lot 3200.
- In 1994, Robert Stevens sold lot 3200 to his son, James Stevens. Both parties believed the deed conveyed all property up to the fence line, including the disputed strip.
- Between 1994 and 1998, James Stevens used the disputed strip, installed a sewer line down its center, and granted his father, Robert, permission on occasion to cross the strip to access Robert's backyard.
- In 1998, James Stevens sold lot 3200 to the defendants, advertising the property as having a 'fully fenced yard' and reinforcing the belief that the fence marked the legal boundary.
- From 1998 onward, defendants used the disputed strip for their home daycare business, laid gravel and bark dust, maintained and extended the fence, and gave Robert Stevens permission to use the strip when he asked.
- In 2006, plaintiff purchased lot 3100 from Robert Stevens. A survey conducted at the time of purchase revealed that the fence was not on the deeded property line and the disputed strip legally belonged to lot 3100.
- In 2008, after a dispute arose over the boundary, plaintiff attempted to remove the fence.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed suit in an Oregon trial court against defendants, seeking a declaration that he owned the disputed strip of land and an injunction to prevent trespassing.
- Defendants filed a counterclaim asserting they had acquired ownership of the strip through adverse possession.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on their counterclaim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that they had established their claim for adverse possession.
- Plaintiff, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals 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:
Do the defendants' and their predecessor's use of the disputed strip of land satisfy the statutory requirements for adverse possession, including actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous possession for ten years under an honest and reasonable belief of ownership?
Opinions:
Majority - Hadlock, J.
Yes, the defendants' and their predecessor's use of the land satisfied all statutory requirements for adverse possession. The undisputed facts establish that the defendants and their predecessor, James, continuously maintained actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and hostile possession of the strip from 1994 until at least 2006, a period exceeding the 10-year statutory requirement. The court found their use—as an extension of their driveway, for a daycare business, and for installing a sewer line—was consistent with that of a true owner. The possession was 'hostile' because it was based on an honest but mistaken belief of ownership, not a 'conscious doubt,' which was supported by the fence's existence and representations during the property sales. Because all elements were met, title vested in the defendants in 2004, extinguishing plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff's equitable estoppel argument fails because the defendants' alleged silence in 2006 occurred after their title had already vested, and property owners do not lose vested title by merely remaining silent when another party disputes their ownership.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'honest belief' and 'pure mistake' standard under Oregon's adverse possession statute, ORS 105.620. It distinguishes a legally sufficient 'pure mistake' from a fatal 'conscious doubt,' showing that a claimant's certainty about a mistaken boundary, even if unexamined, satisfies the hostility requirement. The case also reinforces that granting permissive use to others can strengthen a claim for exclusivity, as it demonstrates the claimant's control over the property. Finally, it establishes that once title vests through adverse possession, it is as secure as deeded title and cannot be undone by a subsequent failure to verbally assert ownership when challenged.
Unlock the full brief for TIEU v. Morgan