391 P.3d 1101
Wyo.2017Background
- Dispute over a 1,208 sq. ft. corner of Lot 23 used by neighbors on Lot 21 for parking and storage for decades; Galiher purchased Lot 23 in March 2013 and later surveyed the property.
- The Johnsons (occupying Lot 21 since 1990) parked vehicles and stored materials on the disputed corner intermittently since the late 1970s; use increased over time with family and renters.
- Prior owners of Lot 23 sometimes permitted the Johnsons’ use as a neighborly accommodation; Johnson testified he believed earlier owners had given permission and did not know exact lot lines until 2013.
- After Galiher’s survey, Johnson twice called her: first requesting permission (denied), then stating he would not remove his belongings because he felt he had a right to be there; he also told others that earlier owners had permitted the use.
- Galiher sued to quiet title (May 2013); the Johnsons counterclaimed for title by adverse possession. After a bench trial, the district court found adverse possession (accruing since 1986, title in 1996). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Galiher) | Defendant's Argument (Johnsons) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in excluding Johnson’s out-of-court statements as irrelevant to intent | Johnson’s admissions that prior owners permitted use show the use was permissive, rebutting adverse possession | Statements are subjective and cannot, alone, establish or defeat adverse possession; objective acts control | Court: Excluding such statements was legal error; out-of-court admissions about permission are admissible and relevant to hostile intent and permissive use |
| Whether the Johnsons established hostile, adverse possession sufficient for title | Galiher: Use was permissive; predecessor owners allowed it, so no hostile claim of right | Johnsons: Their long, open, continuous, exclusive use met the elements of adverse possession | Court: Trial court’s finding may be prejudiced by exclusion of admissions; remand for reconsideration including those statements |
| When the statute of limitations began to run | Galiher: Hostility only began recently (after she surveyed in 2013), so limitations did not bar her claim | Johnsons: Use was hostile by mid-1980s; ten-year period satisfied by 1996 | Court: Unclear; resolution may change after reconsideration of admissible evidence; court reversed and remanded |
| Whether prior owners’ conduct was merely neighborly accommodation (permissive) | Galiher: Evidence (including testimony of prior owner Hatfield and Johnson’s statements) shows permissive use | Johnsons: Deny that permissive permission was established by admissible evidence | Court: Statements and evidence of permissive conduct are relevant; trial court erred in refusing to consider them |
Key Cases Cited
- Hillard v. Marshall, 888 P.2d 1255 (Wyo. 1995) (elements required for adverse possession)
- Turner v. Floyd C. Reno & Sons, Inc., 769 P.2d 364 (Wyo. 1989) (hostility/claim of right requirement for adverse possession)
- Braunstein v. Robinson Family Ltd. Partnership, LLP, 226 P.3d 826 (Wyo. 2010) (claimant cannot rely solely on subjective testimony; must show objective manifestations)
- Shores v. Lindsey, 591 P.2d 895 (Wyo. 1979) (verbal statements are relevant evidence of nature of possession)
- Rutar Farms & Livestock, Inc. v. Fuss, 651 P.2d 1129 (Wyo. 1982) (recognition of owner’s rights in conversation bears on adverse possession)
- Miller v. Stovall, 717 P.2d 798 (Wyo. 1986) (post-acquisition statements can be probative of earlier intent and permissive character of use)
- Gray v. Fitzhugh, 576 P.2d 88 (Wyo. 1978) (permissive neighborly use should not be penalized by allowing acquisition of title by adverse possession)