886 N.W.2d 348
S.D.2016Background
- Dispute over a one‑car garage and small surrounding parcel located on Lots 59 and 60 in Deadwood; garage was built in 1935 and sits adjacent to Lot 8A where Walton and predecessors lived.
- Walton purchased Lot 8A in 2001; her predecessors (Mattsons, Kennedys, Petersons) used and maintained the garage for decades (repairs, roofing, concrete floor/driveway, gravel, landscaping, excavation, retaining walls, fencing).
- Underhill acquired Lots 59–61 (record owner of 59 and 60 after 2012) and sued in 2013 to quiet title to the disputed parcel and for conversion arising from defendants’ continued use.
- Circuit court found defendants (Walton and the Mattsons by tacking to predecessors) acquired the garage and parcel by adverse possession and denied quiet title and conversion claims.
- On appeal, South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, affirmed adverse possession finding and rejection of conversion claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether quiet title should be granted to Underhill (adverse possession elements) | Underhill argued defendants did not occupy the disputed parcel and thus cannot satisfy adverse possession | Defendants argued continuous, open, notorious, exclusive occupation and improvements (tacking through predecessors) satisfied statutory elements | Court held defendants established adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence; quiet title denied to Underhill |
| Whether conversion claim succeeds | Underhill argued post‑2012 use after his purchase amounted to conversion | Defendants argued any possessory right preceded Underhill and adverse possession barred his claim to the real property; no distinct personal property identified | Court held conversion claim fails—no identified personal property taken and defendants’ title by adverse possession defeated the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Deadwood v. Summit, 607 N.W.2d 22 (S.D. 2000) (standards for reviewing adverse possession factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion)
- Titus v. Chapman, 687 N.W.2d 918 (S.D. 2004) (elements of adverse possession under SDCL 15‑3‑12)
- Lewis v. Aslesen, 635 N.W.2d 744 (S.D. 2001) (landscaping and regular mowing qualify as cultivation/improvement for adverse possession)
- Estate of Billings v. Deadwood Congregation of Jehovah Witnesses, 506 N.W.2d 138 (S.D. 1993) (tacking of possession periods to meet statutory timeframe)
- Hamad Assam Corp. v. Novotny, 737 N.W.2d 922 (S.D. 2007) (open and notorious requirement measured by whether a reasonably diligent owner would be put on notice)