Adverse Possession

Fraley v Minger, 829 NE2d 476 (Ind 2005).

Facts: The Mingers claimed title to a tract of land that was adjacent to their farm. Since 1955, their neighbors considered the Mingers to be the owners of the property. They constructed a fence on the property and used the property for farming and recreational activities. The Mingers were unable to locate the owners of the property so they believed that it was unclaimed. They paid taxes on their own farm but not on the claimed property. Fraley received a deed to the claimed property in 1996.

The Mingers brought a quiet title action, alleging title by adverse possession. The trial court granted title to the Mingers but the court of appeals reversed.

Holding: Affirmed. First, the court determined that the Mingers met the common law elements of adverse possession (control, intent, notice, and duration). The Mingers' use of the property, the existence of the fence, and the neighbors' perceptions satisfied the common law elements.

Although the Mingers met the common law elements of adverse possession, the court determined that they did not meet the requirements of the adverse possession tax statute. The statute requires an adverse possessor to pay taxes on the property to claim title. The court rejected an interpretation of the statute that limited the requirement to situations in which the payment of taxes constituted the only notice to an owner. Judicial restraint required adherence to the plain language of the statute. Thus, the court held that payment of taxes was a necessary element of adverse possession in all cases.

© ATG atgc0605vol30
 

Print this page