Yuk v. Robertson
2017 WL 2298432, 2017 Alas. LEXIS 61, 397 P.3d 261 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for adverse possession is not defeated by a public utility easement on the property, which does not negate the element of exclusivity against the private fee owner, nor is the element of hostility negated by the possessor's mistaken belief of ownership.
Facts:
- A fence separating Lot 3 and Lot 4 of a commercial subdivision does not follow the platted boundary, enclosing a 6-foot by 300-foot portion of Lot 4 (the disputed property) with Lot 3.
- In 1969, a municipal sewer easement was recorded on the disputed portion of Lot 4.
- An aerial photograph from 1979 shows the fence in its current, encroaching location.
- Sidney and Theresa Robertson's parents owned Lot 3 and used the disputed area for their daycare's playground.
- In 1991, the Robertsons purchased Lot 3 and continued to operate the daycare, consistently using the disputed property for playground equipment.
- In 2010, Jay and Hee Su Yuk purchased Lot 4 and commissioned a survey that revealed the discrepancy between the fence and the boundary line.
- In 2011, the Yuks demanded the Robertsons move the fence, but the Robertsons refused, asserting ownership through adverse possession.
Procedural Posture:
- Jay and Hee Su Yuk sued Sidney and Theresa Robertson in Alaska superior court (the trial court) to quiet title to a disputed strip of land.
- In their answer, the Robertsons asserted the affirmative defense of adverse possession.
- The Robertsons moved for summary judgment, asking the court to grant them title.
- The Yuks filed an opposition and a cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the Robertsons, recognizing their ownership of the disputed property.
- The Yuks, as appellants, appealed the superior court's decision to the Alaska Supreme Court, with the Robertsons 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:
Does a party establish the elements of exclusivity and hostility for an adverse possession claim by maintaining a fence and using the enclosed land as their own for the statutory period, even if the land is subject to a public sewer easement and the party mistakenly believed they were the true owner?
Opinions:
Majority - Winfree, Justice.
Yes. A party establishes the necessary elements for adverse possession under these circumstances. The existence of a municipal sewer easement does not destroy the element of exclusivity because the adverse claim is against the private fee owner (the Yuks), not the municipality, and is subject to that easement. The Robertsons' use of the land was exclusive in the way an average owner of property subject to such an easement would use it. Furthermore, the element of hostility is judged by an objective standard, making the Robertsons' mistaken belief that they owned the property immaterial. By enclosing the land with a fence and using it continuously for their business, they acted as owners would, which satisfies the hostility requirement and overcomes the presumption of permissive use.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies key principles of adverse possession law, particularly in urban and suburban settings where boundary encroachments and utility easements are common. It solidifies the objective test for hostility, confirming that a possessor's subjective mistake about ownership does not defeat their claim. The ruling also provides important guidance on the element of exclusivity, establishing that a public utility easement does not prevent an adverse possessor from exclusively possessing the property against the private titleholder. This precedent makes it harder for titleholders to defeat adverse possession claims based on these common factual scenarios.
Unlock the full brief for Yuk v. Robertson