Brown v.

Gobble
Brief Fact Summary. A piece of land enclosed into one persons property actually belonged to someone else. When the true owner attempted to build on that property, a claim of adverse possession was made. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Tacking is the adding together of periods of adverse possession, and is allowed when the transferor and transferee have privity with each other.

Facts. The Gobble family purchased a piece of property and were informed by their real estate agent that their property ran up to and included the fence. They used this property consistent with ownership rights. When the Browns purchased their property, a survey they had done showed that a fenced-in two feet wide tract of land that the Gobbles believed was theirs actually belonged to the Browns. At the time, the Browns did nothing to show ownership of that land. Five years later, the Browns decided to build a road on that land, but the Gobbles asserted ownership of the land. The trial court held the Gobbles failed to show ownership by adverse possession. Issue. Can adverse possession be established by landowners by tacking on the time period of their predecessors in title?
Held. Yes. Judgment reversed and remanded. Tacking permits adding together the time period that successive adverse possessors claim property, and if the time period added together is more than ten years, adverse possession may be allowed. The original landowners began their ownership in 1937, and they believed the two feet wide tract of land was theirs, and they exercised dominion and control over the tract that was consistent with ownership rights. The original owners then sold it to another couple, who also believed the parcel in question was theirs. The Gobbles purchased it from them in 1985, and they also believed it belonged to them. To establish the hostile element of possession by tacking, the Gobbles provided evidence that the fence existed in 1937, and continued to exist until the present case. To establish the actual element of possession by tacking, the Gobbles provided evidence that the fence had undergone repairs since 1937, and that a garden and shed had been built on the tract. To establish the open and notorious element of possession by tacking, the Gobbles presented evidence that the community believed the parcel belonged to the original landowners. To establish the exclusive element of possession by tacking, the Gobbles presented evidence that since 1937, no one had ever questioned the ownership of the property. To establish the continuous element of possession by tacking, the Gobbles presented evidence that the original owners enclosed, maintained, cultivated and claimed ownership of the parcel, and so did the subsequent owners.

Discussion. When two parties have a direct relationship with each other, such as being parties to a deed, they are in privity. When privity exists, periods of adverse possession

can be added together so the statutory time requirements can be met, which is called tacking.

Romero v. Garcia
Brief Fact Summary. A person claims adverse possession on land described in an invalid deed. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A deed has a proper description of land if it is possible by reasonable rules of construction to ascertain from the description what property is intended to be conveyed.

Facts. In 1947, Ida Romero (Plaintiff) and her husband purchased land from the husbands father. The husbands mother did not sign the deed, though her husband did. (Both are Defendants). Plaintiff and her husband built a home on a portion of the land. They lived in the home until 1962, when the husband died. Plaintiff attempts to quiet title to the land. Issue. When determining if a deed gives an adequate description of land for purposes of adverse possession, may extrinsic evidence be used to ascertain the boundaries?
Held. Yes. Judgment affirmed. A deed is sufficient under color of title even though it is void because one party failed to sign it. Defendants claim the deed is insufficient for adverse possession because it failed to adequately describe a parcel of land which can be ascertained from the ground. A deed will not be void for want of a proper description if with the deed and extrinsic evidence, a surveyor can ascertain the boundaries of the land intended to be conveyed. Here, the Plaintiff has consistently identified certain areas as hers and her deceased husbands. A surveyor, with the aid of extrinsic evidence, found this to be the same property described in the deed after he did his own examination. Therefore, the description in the deed is adequate.

Discussion. When one holds property under color of title (i.e., a void deed), he will obtain title
to the whole area described in the deed under adverse possession, as long as extrinsic evidence can aid in giving an exact location of the land.

Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom

Brief Fact Summary. During the statutory period, a couple lived on a piece of land and treated it as their own. Title was actually held by another party. Synopsis of Rule of Law. When one party possesses anothers property in a way that is exclusive, continuous, and without permission for a statutorily set period of time, title transfers to the adverse possessor and the owner will be barred from bringing an action of ejectment against the possessor.

Facts. The family of Charles Fagerstrom originally entered the disputed property around

the mid 1940s. After Charles married in 1963, he and his wife intended to build a cabin on the north end of the property. Over the years, they moved more of their property and made improvements to the land. They were present on the property every other weekend and a few times a week. They cleaned the property, and others believed they owned it. Issue. Can a person have adverse possession of property if they did not construct significant
structures on it and was only present on the property seasonally?

Held. Yes. Judgment remanded.

In order to establish title by adverse possession, it must be proved that the use of the land was continuous, open and notorious, exclusive, and hostile to the true owner. The quality and quantity of acts required for adverse possession depend on the character of the land, so a person claiming adverse possession does not have to make significant improvements or occupy the land year-round in order to make a claim. The land must be used during the statutory period in the way an average owner of similar property would use it. When the land in question is rural, a lesser exercise of dominion and control may be reasonable. The use was notorious because if the landowner had checked on the land, he would have noticed that someone was using his property. The use was hostile because the possessors acted as if they owned the land without asking permission for its use. However, the Fagerstroms did not use the southerly portion of the land in a way that would provide notice to the owner of their dominion and control, so they did not obtain adverse possession of that property.

Discussion. When the requirements of adverse possession are met, a trespasser is

transformed into the owner, and the original owner will not be able to eject the adverse possessor.

Community Feed Store, Inc. v. Northeastern Culvert Corp

Brief Fact Summary. A feed store had been using a piece of land for vehicles for many years before it was conclusively established that another party owned the land. The actual owner erected a barrier which prevented the feed store from using the land, so the store made a claim for a prescriptive easement. Synopsis of Rule of Law. In Vermont, a prescriptive easement is a nonfee interest, which is established by adverse use or possession which is open, notorious, hostile and continuous for fifteen years, and acquiescence in the use or possession by the person against whom the claim is asserted.

Facts. Plaintiff owns a feed store, which is next to defendants business. A parcel of

land which covered with gravel north of plaintiffs mill is in dispute. The north and south loading dock of the mill is used by vehicles, which turn and back on the gravel lot. The defendant bought the land in 1956, but did not realize until 1984 that the gravel area did not belong to plaintiff. The defendant erected a barrier that prevented plaintif fs use of the gravel lot. The plaintiff now seeks a declaration of a prescriptive easement. The court denied the plaintiffs claim. Issue. When a person mistakenly uses the property of another for a statutory period of time without permission, does a prescriptive easement arise? Held. Yes. Judgment reversed.
In Vermont, to establish a prescriptive easement, the following elements must be established: adverse use or possession which is open, notorious, hostile and continuous for fifteen years, and acquiescence in the use or possession by the person against whom the claim is asserted. The possessor receives a non-fee interest. The area in dispute had been used by vehicles since the 1920s, and the use was uninterrupted until the barrier was erected in 1984. This satisfied the open, notorious and continuous elements. Generally, open and notorious use is presumed to be adverse. The plaintiff proved they met the time period of fifteen years by the doctrine of tacking. The chain of title from 1929 to the present showed that the gravel area had been used by plaintiffs predecessors.

Discussion. An easement by prescription creates a possessory interest in land, similar to

adverse possession. The difference is that the interest claimed under adverse possession is in fee; a prescriptive easement lead to non-fee interest.

Somerville v. Jacobs
Brief Fact Summary. A builder accidentally constructed an entire structure on neighboring land, which increased the value of the property on which it was built. Synopsis of Rule of Law. When a person in good faith mistakenly improves the property of another, that person is entitled to the value of the improvements.

Facts. The Somervilles believed they were erecting a building on their own property, but were actually constructing it on the Jacobs property. After the building was completed, the Jacobs learned the building was on their property and claimed ownership of it. The Somervilles then sought equitable relief for the value of the improvements. Issue. Can a court of equity award compensation to an improver who makes a good faith mistake of building on land that he does not own?

Held. Yes. Judgment remanded for further proceedings.

The improver reasonably believed that he owned the land and acted in good faith when he erected the building that increased the value of the others land. The owner of the land is

deemed to be the owner of the building, but the improver is entitled to recover the value of the improvements from the landowner. Otherwise, the landowner would be unjustly enriched by the builders work. To enforce the improvers claim, the building may be sold to make the payment.

Dissent. The improver had a duty to determine that he was building on the correct lot and he
made a mistake. Equity should not protect a person at fault. When a property owner is not at fault for having a building mistakenly constructed on his property, he should not be forced into purchasing the building.

Discussion. In order to prevent unjust enrichment, a landowner will have to compensate an

improver who, in good faith mistake, constructs a building on the landowners property.