Williams v. Rogier
1993 WL 89279, 611 N.E.2d 189, 1993 Ind. App. LEXIS 287 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Title to real property is acquired by adverse possession by operation of law when possession has been actual, visible, open and notorious, exclusive, hostile, under a claim of ownership, and continuous for the statutory period. Successive periods of possession by different occupants may be tacked together to meet the statutory requirement, and once title vests, it is not divested by a subsequent offer to purchase the disputed property.
Facts:
- In 1948, Marguerite Elles conveyed a 1.75-acre parcel to the Dannenbergs, who subsequently erected a fence enclosing the entire parcel.
- In 1969, the deeds were reconfigured: 0.75 acres were reconveyed to Elles, and the remaining 1-acre parcel was conveyed to the Austills, but the fence around the original 1.75 acres remained in place.
- On April 15, 1977, the Austills conveyed the 1-acre parcel to the Renders, who used and maintained the entire 1.75-acre fenced-in area as their own.
- On March 7, 1980, the Renders conveyed the 1-acre parcel to the Rogiers, who continued to use the entire fenced-in area, planting trees, gardens, and building a clubhouse on the disputed portion.
- In November 1989, Gary and Wilma Sue Williams entered into an agreement to purchase the 159 acres of adjacent land from the Elles heirs, which included the disputed 0.75-acre area.
- In December 1989, a surveyor hired by Williams placed a stake inside the Rogiers' fenced yard, marking the boundary line according to the deeds.
- After discovering the discrepancy, the Rogiers' attorney sent a letter dated November 26, 1990, to Williams, claiming ownership of the disputed area and offering $750 to formally purchase it and secure an easement.
- Williams declined the Rogiers' offer.
Procedural Posture:
- On February 4, 1991, Gene and Joan Rogier filed a complaint to quiet title in an Indiana trial court against Gary and Wilma Sue Williams.
- Williams filed an answer, affirmative defenses including laches, and a counterclaim to quiet title to the same area.
- Williams requested special findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found for the Rogiers, concluding they had acquired title by adverse possession.
- Williams, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with the Rogiers as appellees.
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 Rogiers acquire title to the disputed property by adverse possession, by tacking their period of use onto that of their predecessors, despite not holding record title or paying taxes on that specific parcel?
Opinions:
Majority - Najam, J.
Yes, the Rogiers acquired title by adverse possession. Fee simple title vests by operation of law once the conditions for adverse possession have been met for the statutory period. The court found that the Rogiers' and their predecessors' (the Renders) possession was actual, visible, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous for the required ten-year period. By tacking the Renders' adverse possession from 1977 to their own possession starting in 1980, the Rogiers' title vested by operation of law in 1987. The fence served as sufficient notice to the record owner, and their continuous use of the land for gardening, mowing, and building a clubhouse constituted acts of ownership. Once title vested in 1987, it was not lost by the Rogiers' subsequent offer to purchase the property in 1990, as that was an offer of settlement and did not constitute a disavowment of their already-perfected title.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of the doctrine of 'tacking' in adverse possession, affirming that successive possessors can combine their periods of occupation to satisfy the statutory time requirement. It reinforces the principle that title acquired through adverse possession vests automatically by operation of law and is not a right that must be subsequently asserted in court to become effective. The decision also solidifies the legal precedent that a subsequent offer to purchase the disputed land does not divest an already-acquired title, treating such offers as inadmissible settlement negotiations rather than a disclaimer of ownership. This strengthens the position of adverse possessors who have met all statutory requirements, even if they later take actions that might seem inconsistent with a claim of ownership.
