Paul M. Dobis v. David L. Scegura, Trustee of the David L. Scegura Trust, David Catlin, Patricia Ann Catlin
A16-1090
Minn. Ct. App.Jan 30, 2017Background
- Land originally owned by Valentine Kociemba was split among three sons in 1968; dispute concerns the north–south boundary between Steve’s parcel (east) and Mark/Alois’s parcels (west).
- Aerial photos (1965–2010) and surveys showed an occupational/recognized boundary that extended east of the surveyed line, creating a 1.2-acre disputed grass strip between the survey line and the farmed line.
- Steve and his wife Louise farmed eastward up to the recognized boundary from 1968–2010; Mark and Alois did not challenge that use during the statutory period.
- Respondents (successors to Steve and Louise) brought a quiet-title action asserting adverse possession (15-year statutory period) over the disputed strip; district court found adverse possession established by clear and convincing evidence.
- Appellants (successors to Mark and Alois) appealed, challenging findings on actual, open, exclusive, continuous, and hostile possession and contesting the precise location of the recognized boundary.
- Court of appeals affirmed adverse-possession finding as to the portion proven to have been possessed for 15+ years, but remanded because the record did not establish the exact boundary line or whether respondents’ post-2010 westward tilling extended beyond Steve and Louise’s recognized line.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dobis/Respondents) | Defendant's Argument (Scegura/Catlins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual possession | Predecessors (Steve & Louise) openly farmed the strip from ~1965–2010, occupying it as land fit for agriculture | Findings re: boundary markers are erroneous; respondents themselves didn’t possess entire disputed area | Court: District court’s factual finding of actual possession by predecessors not clearly erroneous; supported by aerial photos and testimony |
| Open possession | Farming and visible use put occupants on notice; parties conceded openness below | Claim not preserved on appeal; alternatively, argued possession wasn’t visible | Court: Issue not properly before it; in any event, possession was open (visible tilling/crops) |
| Exclusivity | Steve & Louise exercised exclusive control east of the occupational line, excluding siblings | Respondents only incrementally expanded after 2010; exclusivity thus lacking over full claimed area | Court: Exclusive possession by predecessors established for the period before 2010; title passed to respondents |
| Continuity & Hostility | Continuous, hostile possession (tackable through predecessors) for >15 years; family relationship notwithstanding, use became adverse | Family relationship suggests permissive use; respondents’ post-2010 creep undermines continuity/hostility | Court: Continuous, hostile possession by Steve & Louise for requisite 15 years proven; hostility can be inferred despite familial ties; but remanded to fix precise boundary location and limit claim to area actually possessed by Steve & Louise |
Key Cases Cited
- Ganje v. Schuler, 659 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. App.) (standard of review for adverse possession fact findings)
- Ebenhoh v. Hodgman, 642 N.W.2d 104 (Minn. App.) (strict construction of adverse-possession evidence; character-of-possession test)
- Rogers v. Moore, 603 N.W.2d 650 (Minn.) (elements of adverse possession summarized)
- Ehle v. Prosser, 197 N.W.2d 458 (Minn.) (adverse possession elements and hostility does not require subjective intent)
- Fredericksen v. Henke, 209 N.W. 257 (Minn.) (tacking/privity and effect of perfected adverse title)
- Norgong v. Whitehead, 31 N.W.2d 267 (Minn.) (presumption of permissive use in close family relationships)
- Wojahn v. Johnson, 297 N.W.2d 298 (Minn.) (application of family-presumption principle among siblings)
- Hickerson v. Bender, 500 N.W.2d 169 (Minn. App.) (definition of open possession)
- Mellenthin v. Brantman, 1 N.W.2d 141 (Minn.) (actual possession requires using land for its fitness)