56 N.E.3d 109
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Lot 32 (Morgans) and Lot 33 (Whites) share a chain‑link fence erected decades ago; Whites maintained land south of the fence and paid Lot 33 taxes since 1998.
- Whites purchased Lot 33 in 1998 and relied on a survey location report that led them to treat the fence as the property line.
- Morgans purchased Lot 32 in 2003, reviewed a survey report, and believed the fence encroached a few feet onto Lot 32; an early conversation recorded White’s refusal to move the fence.
- Dispute escalated after Andrew White trimmed juniper bushes in 2013 (planted by Morgans near the fence); Morgans sued for trespass and to remove the fence.
- Whites counterclaimed for adverse possession and quiet title. At trial neither party introduced a staked survey or exact legal description of the disputed line; the trial court found for the Whites on adverse possession and quieted title to the fence line, ordering the Whites to obtain a staked survey and legal description and execute reciprocal quitclaim deeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Morgans) | Defendant's Argument (Whites) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s judgment granting adverse possession and quiet title is clearly erroneous where no staked survey or precise legal description of the disputed strip was introduced | Morgans: adverse possession requires proof of the exact tract by legal description/staked survey; without it the court cannot determine boundary and should not grant title | Whites: adverse possession and quiet title may be based on use and monumentation (the existing fence); a description is sufficient when a surveyor can locate boundaries from monuments | Court affirmed: evidence supported the Fraley elements (control, intent, notice, duration) up to the fence line; the existing fence constituted sufficient monumentation for quiet title; judgment not clearly erroneous; ordered staked survey and quitclaims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yanoff v. Muncy, 688 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. 1997) (standard of appellate review for findings and conclusions)
- Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 2005) (reformulated adverse possession elements as control, intent, notice, duration; clear and convincing standard)
- Altevogt v. Brand, 963 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (summarizing Fraley elements)
- Celebration Worship Ctr., Inc. v. Tucker, 35 N.E.3d 251 (Ind. 2015) (tax‑payment/good faith requirement in adverse possession context)
- Gilbert v. Lusk, 106 N.E.2d 404 (Ind. Ct. App. 1952) (a description is sufficient when a sheriff/surveyor can locate the real estate using monuments)
- Taflinger Farm v. Uhl, 815 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (monument/fence testimony may be inadequate where it fails to provide definite and specific tract identification)