Hutchinson v. Taft

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed judgment for the defendants in an adverse-possession action involving property originally leased by the plaintiffs' predecessors. The court held that the plaintiffs' cessation of rent payments did not convert their initially permissive possession into hostile possession because they did not clearly, positively, and continuously disavow the owners' title. The court also found no abuse of discretion concerning the handling of an exhibit or the denial of post-trial motions.

Holdings

1. A tenant's cessation of rental payments, without more, does not convert permissive possession into hostile possession for purposes of adverse possession. A claimant who entered the property permissively must clearly, positively, and continuously disavow the true owner's title, through actual notice or acts or declarations so manifest and notorious that notice is presumed.
2. An order granting judgment on partial findings under W.R.C.P. 52(c) is reviewed under the same de novo standard applicable to judgment as a matter of law under W.R.C.P. 50(a)(1).
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by deferring its ruling on the objection to Exhibit 9 when the Hutchinsons rested without offering the exhibit and the court never reached a ruling on admissibility.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions to amend the findings or for a new trial because the proposed additional evidence would not have established the required repudiation of the Tafts' title.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly granted judgment on partial findings under W.R.C.P. 52(c) because the Hutchinsons failed to establish that their initially permissive possession became hostile adverse possession.
2. Whether the district court erred by deferring its ruling on the admissibility of Exhibit 9 and thereby failing to admit the exhibit.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the Hutchinsons' motions to amend the findings or for a new trial.

Disposition

affirmed