Summary
This Oregon Court of Appeals decision reverses a trial court's dismissal of defendants' counterclaim for adverse possession concerning a stairway that encroaches onto plaintiffs' cliffside property. The appellate court concluded that the stairway's visibility from the adjacent public beach satisfied the open and notorious requirement, and that the predecessors in interest maintained an honest belief of ownership throughout the statutory vesting period. The matter is remanded for the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the defendants on the adverse possession counterclaim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court correctly held that defendants failed to prove the open-and-notorious element of adverse possession because the stairway was not visible from a safely accessible location on plaintiffs' property.
- Whether the record required judgment for defendants on the hostility and honest-belief elements of adverse possession under ORS 105.620.
- Whether the court should reach defendants' challenges to the dismissal of their prescriptive and implied easement counterclaims.
Holdings
- A claimant satisfies the open-and-notorious element when the claimant's conduct is significant enough to give the title holder a reasonable opportunity to learn of the adverse use; actual visibility from, or safe access to, the title holder's property is not required when the encroachment is clearly visible from an accessible public location.
- The undisputed record established that defendants and their immediate predecessors satisfied the hostility and honest-belief elements of adverse possession for at least the statutory vesting period, requiring judgment for defendants on their adverse-possession counterclaim.
- The court did not reach defendants' assigned errors concerning the dismissal of their prescriptive and implied easement counterclaims because its disposition of the adverse-possession counterclaim resolved the appeal.
Key quotations
“The focus of the inquiry is therefore on the nature of the claimant’s conduct, that is, whether it was significant enough to afford the title holder a reasonable opportunity to learn of the use during the 10-year vesting period, and not whether the title holder in fact had notice of that conduct.” (576)
“The statute is clear regarding whose honest belief is relevant: the person claiming adverse possession (here, defendants) or their predecessors in interest (here, the Lausmanns).” (578)
“the record compels a finding under the applicable clear and convincing evidence standard that they had that belief when they acquired 1339 Crissey and throughout the 16-year period that they owned it, that their belief had an objective basis, and that their belief was reasonable under the circumstances.” (579)
Factual background
The parties owned adjoining bluff-top properties in Brookings, Oregon, and defendants' stairway to the beach crossed plaintiffs' property. Defendants' predecessors acquired their property in 2003 with listing materials identifying the stairway as a property feature, and they maintained the stairway and used it through family members and guests. They initially allowed plaintiffs' predecessors to use the stairway but revoked that permission in 2008; plaintiffs learned that the stairway encroached on their property only in 2019 after a survey. Defendants acquired the property from the predecessors' trust in 2019.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs sued defendants for trespass, nuisance, and declaratory and injunctive relief concerning a stairway crossing plaintiffs' property. Defendants counterclaimed for adverse possession, easements, quiet title, and declaratory relief. The circuit court tried the counterclaims first, denied them, and entered a limited judgment dismissing the counterclaims. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the adverse-possession ruling and remanded for entry of judgment for defendants on that counterclaim, while otherwise affirming.
Remand instructions
Reverse the limited judgment insofar as it dismissed defendants' adverse-possession counterclaim and remand for entry of judgment in defendants' favor on that counterclaim; otherwise affirm.