432 P.3d 502
Wyo.2018Background
- The Johnsons (Dennis and Vicki) used a small northwestern corner of Lot 23 (owned by various predecessors until Galiher purchased in 2013) for parking, storage, and minor structures beginning with use by predecessors in 1977 and continuously by the Johnsons since 1986.
- The Johnsons never obtained express permission from any recorded owners of Lot 23; some prior owners observed the use but did not communicate with the Johnsons.
- After Galiher received a survey in April 2013 showing the boundary, she objected; Johnson initially asked for permission, was denied, then later continued use and told third parties he had prior permission.
- Galiher sued to quiet title (May 2013); Johnsons counterclaimed for title by adverse possession. A bench trial occurred in 2015; the district court found adverse possession and vested title in the Johnsons.
- This Court reversed and remanded in Galiher I to require the district court to consider Mr. Johnson’s statements asserting prior permission; on remand the district court again found adverse possession and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the district court's factual findings about Johnson's permission statements clearly erroneous? | Galiher: court wrongly discredited Johnson’s statements; they show a sincere mistaken belief in permission. | Johnsons: statements were objectively untrue and made for self-preservation; overall conduct shows no permission. | Findings not clearly erroneous; court reasonably inferred statements were untrue and motivational inference was permissible. |
| Did the Johnsons make a prima facie showing of adverse possession (hostility and claim of right)? | Galiher: if Johnson’s statements taken as true, use was permissive and not hostile. | Johnsons: open, notorious, exclusive, continuous use and structural reliance satisfied hostility; statements don’t overcome objective acts. | Johnsons made prima facie showing; burden shifted and Galiher failed to prove permissive use. |
| Should neighborly accommodation defeat adverse possession? | Galiher: prior owners (e.g., Hatfield) tacitly permitted use as neighborly accommodation. | Johnsons: no mutual agreement or communication with prior owners; lack of interaction precludes accommodation. | No neighborly accommodation found—insufficient evidence of agreement or communication. |
| Was the district court required to treat Johnson’s statements as dispositive evidence of permission? | Galiher: yes — statements should have been credited and rebutted the adverse-possession claim. | Johnsons: statements are only one piece of evidence and may be weighed against long-term conduct. | Court properly considered the statements but weighed them against the totality of objective evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graybill v. Lampman, 332 P.3d 511 (discusses standard of review for bench trial findings)
- Helm v. Clark, 244 P.3d 1052 (explains shifting burdens in adverse possession and standard of appellate review)
- Braunstein v. Robinson Family Ltd. P'ship LLP, 226 P.3d 826 (adverse possession is peculiarly factual; intent shown by acts or words)
- Hillard v. Marshall, 888 P.2d 1255 (permissive use cannot support adverse possession)
- Murdock v. Zier, 137 P.3d 147 (possession is hostile whether by mistake or willful)
- Rutar Farms & Livestock, Inc. v. Fuss, 651 P.2d 1129 (intent often better ascertained by acts than by claimant's words)
- Cook v. Eddy, 193 P.3d 705 (non-payment of taxes is a factor but not dispositive in adverse possession)
- Gray v. Fitzhugh, 576 P.2d 88 (neighborly accommodations can defeat adverse possession where evidence shows mutual agreement)
- Addison v. Dallarosa-Handrich, 161 P.3d 1089 (statutory period occupancy gives presumption of adverse possession unless rebutted)