Download Adverse Possession in Minnesota: Case Law and Requirements and more Study notes Acting in PDF only on Docsity!
The Driveway Case
Objective: To better understand how courts analyze and decide a case using “elements.”
Case Summary Case Study Case Map What Do You Think? 1.Open Use Case Map Answer
- Exclusive Use Case Map Answer
- Hostile Use Case Map Answer
- Actual Use Case Map Answer
- Continuous Use Case Map Answer
CASE SUMMARY
The case of “Who owns the Driveway” in the Inside Straight video has facts that are similar to many cases heard by the courts. In these cases, one person believes the property is hers and acts like it belongs to her (uses it, plants trees on it, etc.) while another person claims rights to the property because of the legal description of the property. The legal description describes the boundaries of the property that someone owns. The courts look at six elements in deciding who actually owns the property. 1) Was the property used for at least 15 years? 2) Was the use open, obvious? 3) Was the use exclusive? 4) Was the property used in a hostile way? 5) Was the use continuous? 6) Was the use actual?
Information contained on these pages was developed by the Minnesota Center for Community Legal Education for use only as a teaching aid by Minnesota educators. The case summaries included in this unit are those of the author(s) and do not represent the position or opinion of the Minnesota Court system, justices, judges or employees.
CASE STUDY
Driveway Case
The girl in the driveway case says that her family won the case in the Minnesota Court of Appeals because her family proved two things:
- That they used the driveway for over fifteen years; and
- That they made improvements to the driveway. They had receipts showing that they had paid for paving it. The legal theory that allowed the girl's family to become the legal owners of the driveway in question is called adverse possession. When you want to get control of a piece of real property which you don't actually own, you can try to adversely possess it. You do this by acting as though the property really does belong to you. There are certain ways to do this in order to win. You must "possess" or use the land for at least fifteen years , like the family in the driveway case. You must also be open about your use of the property. That is, your use must be obvious. The driveway case family certainly was "open" about their use. Look at the driveway case map. You can see that the girl's family drove right in front of their neighbor's house probably every day for as long as the daughter can remember. And, the girl's family blacktopped the dirt road eighteen years ago. In doing this, they weren't hiding their use of the driveway. They were very "open" about it. Their use was obvious. The fifteen-year requirement and the need to be "open" about the use of the property are only two of six things (or elements as they are legally called), which must be proven to win an adverse possession case. This means that the girl's family must have also proven four other things about their use of the driveway.
They must have proven that their use was exclusive. Exclusive means you use the property in a way that excludes others. On the driveway case map, you can see that the driveway that goes on the neighbor's property leads to the main road in front of the two houses. The driveway is not used by everyone who drives on the main road, but is used only, or exclusively, by the girl's family and their guests. (You can never adversely possess public property because others use the land with you so your use of it is never exclusive.)
They must have proven that their use was hostile. Hostile use does not mean that you are an angry, mean user of the property. It simply means that you use the property in a way that claims your exclusive ownership as against everyone else. When the girl’s family blacktopped the driveway, that act was “hostile,” or contrary, to the rights of their neighbors.
They must have proven that their use was continuous. Continuous means that the adverse possessor’s use was not interrupted in any way for the fifteen years. The girl in the driveway case said her family used the driveway "for as long as she could remember" and there were no claims that her family stopped their use of it at any time during the fifteen-year requirement.
land or buildings. It shall not operate to change the laws of descent or the rights of partition between cotenants, or the right to take the land by eminent domain. It shall not operate to relieve such land from liability to be taken or recovered by any assignee or receiver under any provision of law relative thereto, and shall not operate to change or affect any other rights, burdens, liabilities, or obligations created by law and applicable to unregistered land except as otherwise expressly provided herein. No title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or by adverse possession.
Driveway Map
Neighbor’s Property
Girl’s Family House
Main Road
Contested Property
Open Map
Hick’s Property
Bend’s Property
Contested Property
Gull
Lake
Ruth
Lake
2. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
In 1892 Rick built a store in Austin Minnesota that was 72 x 22 feet in size. A 22 x 22
foot lot directly behind the store was used by the store for parking. However, it belonged to Sam.
In 1930, Sam built a wall behind the store, on his lot, which cut off access to the alley for
the store's employees and customers. (See Exclusive Map.) Rick sued Sam for adverse
possession of the lot. The court found that Rick used the lot for the required fifteen years. It also
determined that Rick's use of the lot was open, continuous and actual. But, did Rick use the lot
in an "exclusive" and in a "hostile" way? What do you think?
For the Answer click here.
3. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Starting in 1942, Earl and Pete owned property next to each other. In 1936, six years
before Pete bought his land, Earl planted shrubs and hedges and also placed stone monuments
and heavy urns with flowers in them on some of the land that would eventually be owned by
Pete. (See Hostile Map.)
Earl had also created a parking area on the land eventually owed by Pete with a stone
walkway to Earl's house. Earl and Pete shared this parking area. They also shared a clothes pole
on this strip of land and were neighborly about the use of the area.
In 1972, Earl sued for adverse possession of the strip of land belonging to Pete. The court
found that Earl's use of the land was open, exclusive, continuous and actual for at least fifteen
years. However, was his use of the area "hostile"? What do you think?
For the Answer click here.
Hostile Map
Earl’s PropertyEarl’s PropertyEarl’s PropertyEarl’s Property
Pete’s PropertyPete’s PropertyPete’s PropertyPete’s Property
Shared Parking Lot
Contested Property
Actual Map
Stan’s PropertyStan’s PropertyStan’s PropertyStan’s Property
Urban’s PropertyUrban’s PropertyUrban’s PropertyUrban’s Property
StorageShed(1981)
Lake
Contested Property
5. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
In 1863 Eddie took a look at Carl's land in upper Duluth. In 1864 he removed bushes on
the land and in 1866 and 1867 he cut timber and saved it to build a house that he finished in
- It was a story and a half dwelling enclosed by a fence with shrubbery and apple trees.
Eddie also planted raspberry, gooseberry and currant bushes. (See Continuous Map.) He lived on
Carl's land until 1881. Then he rented it out, but he always had the key to the place, paid taxes
and made improvements on it.
In 1890, Carl sued to get his land back claiming Eddie abandoned the property when he
moved out. The court ruled that Eddie's use of the land was open, exclusive, hostile and actual
for at least fifteen years. But was it continuous? What do you think?
For the Answer click here.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ANSWERS
1. Open Use Case.
Adverse possession was proven by Bend. The court found that Bend's use of the land was "open" because "open" means visible to the immediate surroundings. People could see Bend's improvements. He wasn't trying to hide his use of the land. Hick lost possession of the strip of land near Gull Lake.
Based on Hickerson v. Bender , 500 N.W. 2d 169 (Minn Ct of Appeals 1993).
2. Exclusive Use Case
Rick won. He became the owner of the lot by adverse possession. His use of the lot was “exclusive” because even though more than one person used it; all the people had a similar reason for using it—to access his store. The court ruled that “exclusive” doesn’t mean “use” by one person only, but “use” that is separate from the entire community.
The court also found that Rick’s use of the lot was “hostile” to the owner of the lot. This was proven by Sam’s own actions in building the wall to stop Rick’s store traffic. This showed Sam did not like Rick’s use of the lot. It was “hostile” to Sam’s possession of the land.
Based on Merrick v. Scheuder 228 N.W. 755 (Mn. 1930).
3. Hostile Use Case.
Earl won by adverse possession. He got the land because the court found that his use of it was "hostile." "Hostile" possession does not refer to a personal fight or negative attitude. It only means that the adverse possessor acts as though he is claiming exclusive ownership of the land as against the world. Earl certainly was doing that by making so many improvements to the land he ultimately claimed as his.
Based on Ehle v. Prosser , 197 N.W.2d 458 (Minn. 1972).
4. Actual Use Case
No adverse possession. Stan gets his property back. The court agreed that sporadic use and upkeep of the piece of property was not sufficient to constitute "actual" possession. The court agreed with Stan and stated that it wasn't until Urban built the shed that his possession became actual, triggering the 15-year period needed for adverse possession. And since only eight years passed between the construction of the shed and the lawsuit, that element of adverse possession was not proved by Urban.
The court also held that since Urban had offered to buy the disputed property from Stan, Urban had broken the "continuity" of his adverse possession claim by acknowledging Stan's ownership
of the land.
Based on Standard v. Urban , 453 N.W.2d 733. (Minn. Ct. of Appeals 1990)
5. Continuous Use Case
Carl lost. Eddie secured the land by adverse possession even though he did not live there all the time. The court ruled that actual residence and continuous occupancy is not required to show continuous use. The fact that Eddie kept up the property and continued to "rule" over it was enough "continuity" for adverse possession.
Based on Costello v. Edson , 46 N.W. 299 (Minn. 1890).
