Mannillo v. Gorski

Facts

In 1946, Margaret Gorski and her husband took possession of a lot under an agreement to purchase. The seller deeded the lot to them on April 16, 1952. The lot was 25 feet wide and 100 feet deep. The Mannillos owned the lot next door, which they acquired in 1953. In the summer of 1946, one of Gorski's sons built a concrete platform with steps on the west side of her house, replacing wooden steps, and laid a concrete walk from the steps to the end of the house. In 1953 she raised the house and extended the steps toward the front and rear, without changing their width. Gorski admitted that the steps and walk reached 15 inches onto the Mannillos' land. She claimed title to that strip by adverse possession, which means gaining title by holding another's land openly for the period the statute sets. The Mannillos said her possession was not hostile, because she acted from a mistaken belief that she owned the land. The trial court found clear and convincing proof that her possession had lasted more than 20 years before suit and had been exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, visible and notorious. The Supreme Court found ample evidence for that finding, except as to its visible and notorious nature.

Issues

1. Does an entry on land, and continued possession, under a mistaken belief that the possessor owns it meet the hostility requirement for title by adverse possession?
2. Is possession of a small encroachment along a common boundary open and notorious, so that the true owner is presumed to know of it?

Holding

A possessor's mistaken belief that she owned the land does not defeat adverse possession. But a minor boundary encroachment is open and notorious only if the true owner had actual knowledge of it. The case was remanded to decide actual knowledge and, if needed, a forced conveyance for fair value.