Helm v. Clark
2010 WY 168
Wyo.2010Background
- Helms and Clark boundary dispute over a long-standing fence south of the recorded boundary in Lincoln County, Wyoming.
- Clark claimed title to the land north of the fence by adverse possession; Helms sought to eject Clark and protect the boundary.
- District court found Clark established adverse possession and quieted title in Clark; Helms appealed.
- Court acknowledged fence was off the surveyed line but continuous and used for grazing, with Helms aware of the discrepancy.
- Remand ordered to determine the exact legal description of the adversely possessed area and to address the impact of a relocated Clark/Nebeker fence.
- Helms argued the fence was a boundary fence, not a fence of convenience; Clark argued possession was adverse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark proved a prima facie case for adverse possession | Clark asserts long, exclusive, open use of the disputed area. | Helms claim possession was permissive due to fence-off-line and lack of tangible proof. | Clark established a prima facie case for adverse possession. |
| Whether the Clark/Helm fence is a boundary fence or a fence of convenience | Fence was aligned with a boundary and used to separate ownership; not a mere convenience. | Prior admissions show the east fence was a fence of convenience; thus Clark’s possession was permissive. | District court correctly ruled the fence is a boundary fence, not a fence of convenience. |
| Whether the evidence supports a precise description of the adversely possessed area | Disputed area is defined by the fence and historical use; exact measurements not required for possession. | A precise legal description is necessary for recording and notice. | Remand to determine the exact legal description of the adversely possessed property. |
Key Cases Cited
- Addison v. Dallarosa-Handrich, 161 P.3d 1089 (Wy. 2007) (burden-shifting test for adverse possession)
- Cook v. Eddy, 193 P.3d 705 (Wy. 2008) (evidence and presumption of adverse possession when possession is hostile)
- Mullinnix LLC v. HKB Royalty Trust, 126 P.3d 909 (Wy. 2006) (district court findings reviewed for clear error)
- Hillard v. Marshall, 888 P.2d 1255 (Wy. 1995) (pasturing livestock within a substantial enclosure supports adverse possession)
- Braunstein v. Robinson Family Limited Partnership, LLP, 226 P.3d 826 (Wy. 2010) (fence located off boundary can negate a claim of adverse possession)
- Doenz v. Garber, 665 P.2d 932 (Wy. 1983) (fence line adverse possession considerations)
- Stryker v. Rasch, 112 P.2d 570 (Wy. 1941) (historic adverse possession principles)
- Inserra v. Violi, 679 N.W.2d 230 (Neb. 2004) (importance of adequate description in conveyances and possession cases)