White v. Wheeler, 406 P.3d 1241

Background

Whites owned contiguous tracts (including Tract 16 and formerly Tract 10) and in 1988 built a fence (the “1988 fence”) that later lay inside what became Tract 10 after platting and sales.
Whites grazed livestock up to that fence for years; Tract 10 was sold in 2006 and changed hands until the Wheelers acquired it in 2013; the 1988 fence remained on Tract 10.
Dispute began in 2016 when Whites discovered manure and an open gate; Whites then locked the gate and filed suit to quiet title, seeking adverse possession of the roughly eight-acre strip between the fence and Tract 16.
The Whites moved for (partial) summary judgment on a prima facie adverse-possession claim; Wheelers opposed and requested summary judgment, arguing use was permissive and not hostile.
The district court denied the Whites’ motion and granted summary judgment to the Wheelers on adverse possession and permissive-use grounds; the Whites appealed.
The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the grant to the Wheelers and remanded, holding genuine disputes of material fact existed as to the adverse-possession elements and permissive-use defense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Whites were entitled to partial summary judgment on a prima facie adverse-possession claim (open, notorious, hostile, exclusive, continuous, 10 years)	Whites: enclosing with fence + grazing raised presumption of adverse possession and no genuine factual dispute	Wheelers: White affidavits are conclusory and refuted; use was permissive, sporadic, and not hostile	Denied — genuine disputes of material fact existed; summary judgment for Whites improper
Whether Wheelers were entitled to summary judgment that Whites failed to show open, notorious, hostile possession (including heightened showing where possession began permissively)	Whites: fence, maintenance, and grazing support inference of hostile, notorious use; fence could have been a fence-out asserting ownership	Wheelers: prior owners treated fence as pasture convenience; Whites’ activities were innocuous, infrequent, and permitted	Reversed — material facts disputed; reasonable inferences favoring Whites preclude Wheelers’ summary judgment
Whether Whites had continuous and exclusive possession (grazing-season use)	Whites: affidavits describe seasonal, rotational grazing up to fence each year and measures to keep animals on west pasture	Wheelers: affidavits say grazing was sporadic, infrequent; Wheelers and predecessors used the land for recreation and manure spreading	Reversed — conflicting affidavit evidence creates triable issues on continuity and exclusivity
Whether Whites’ use was permissive (Wheelers’ affirmative defense)	Whites: use became adverse after sale of Tract 10; any prior permissive character changed; denials of alleged permission conversations	Wheelers: evidence of two occasions where Whites requested/received permission; prior owners treated fence as convenience	Reversed — questions of permission and fence characterization are factual and for the factfinder

Key Cases Cited

Hillard v. Marshall, 888 P.2d 1266 (Wyo. 1996) (elements of adverse possession: actual, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, hostile, claim of right or color of title)
Helm v. Clark, 244 P.3d 1052 (Wyo. 2010) (fencing and pasturing may raise the adverse-possession flag, but failure to pay taxes and not executing title documents are not dispositive)
Braunstein v. Robinson Family Ltd. P’ship, 226 P.3d 826 (Wyo. 2010) (adverse-possession claims are fact-sensitive and summary judgment requires careful scrutiny)
Galiher v. Johnson, 391 P.3d 1101 (Wyo. 2017) (hostility defined as conduct that would put a prudent owner on notice)
Rutar Farms & Livestock, Inc. v. Fuss, 651 P.2d 1129 (Wyo. 1982) (mere possession insufficient; specifics required to support adverse-possession claim)
Shores v. Lindsey, 591 P.2d 895 (Wyo. 1979) (grazing-based continuous possession is shown by use during each growing season)
Graybill v. Lampman, 332 P.3d 511 (Wyo. 2014) (exclusive means expected owner-type use under the circumstances; permissive use may require unequivocal disavowal to convert to hostile)