Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom

Facts

Nome 2000 held record title to a tract that included a parcel of about seven and one-half acres overlooking the Nome River, in a rural area called Osborn. Charles Fagerstrom's family used the parcel seasonally from around 1944 or 1945. In 1966 the Fagerstroms brought building materials to its north end, intending to build a cabin. Around 1970 they built a picnic area there. From mid-July 1974 they parked a camper trailer on the north end each summer, and they built an outhouse and a fish rack. In summer 1977 they built a reindeer shelter and pen that housed a reindeer for about six weeks. They visited often, gathered berries, fished and picked up litter. They walked paths across the whole parcel that, according to Peggy Fagerstrom, others were free to use. Community members testified that the Fagerstroms treated the land as owners would. An anthropologist testified that their use fit a traditional Native Alaskan system that does not recognize exclusive ownership. Nome 2000 admitted they adversely possessed the north end from summer 1978, when they put a cabin there, until it sued on July 24, 1987. From summer 1977 to summer 1978, their only activity on the southerly portion was using the existing trails and picking up litter. Of four corner stakes placed in 1970 or 1971, two were on or very near the tract, and the one on the southerly portion later disappeared.

Issues

1. Do the continuity, notoriety and exclusivity elements of adverse possession require significant improvements, substantial activity or absolute exclusivity, or does the use required depend on the character of the land, here rural?
2. Is a possessor's hostility to the true owner measured by what the possessor believed or intended, such as a belief in traditional Native Alaskan stewardship, or by an objective test?
3. Could the Fagerstroms acquire the southerly portion of the parcel when their only activity there was using existing trails, picking up litter and placing corner stakes?

Holding

The jury could reasonably find that the Fagerstroms proved, by clear and convincing evidence, continuous, notorious, exclusive and hostile possession of the northerly section for the ten years before suit, whatever the Fagerstroms believed or intended. The southerly portion was not actually possessed, so the court should have granted a directed verdict as to it.