100 N.J. Super. 140, 241 A.2d 276 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1968)
In the spring of 1945, the defendant and her husband took possession of their rectangular property in Keansburg under a contract dated April 1945.1 The lot has a 25-foot frontage on West Shore Street and extends 100 feet south to South Street.2 The defendant and her husband obtained a deed to the premises on April 16, 1962.3 The plaintiffs took possession of the adjoining lot to the west shortly after May 23, 1953, which has the same dimensions.4
In the summer of 1946, the defendant's 14-year-old son, with his father's assistance, installed a concrete platform with steps on the west side of the defendant's house and a concrete walk running south from the steps to the end of the house.5 In 1953, following a flooding condition, the foundations of both houses were raised, and the son built new steps on the same location as the original concrete steps.6 It is admitted that the steps and walk encroach 15 inches onto the plaintiffs' land.7
Plaintiff Fred Mannillo testified that in 1960 he discovered the encroachment by running a tape across his property after a survey to the west.8 He spoke to the defendant about it but made no real complaint until shortly before the complaint was filed.9 In 1965, the plaintiffs had a wire fence installed completely around their property, placed up to the defendant's platform, which is approximately 15 inches inside the east boundary of the plaintiffs' land.10
At trial, it was stipulated that neither the defendant nor her son knew that the steps and walk encroached on the plaintiffs' property until shortly before the complaint was filed.11 After the final hearing, the court made findings of fact and rendered judgment for the defendant on her adverse possession claim.12 The plaintiffs then moved for a new trial or to set aside the judgment on the grounds that it was contrary to the weight of the evidence and contrary to the law.13
Whether the defendant's possession of the 15 inch strip had the requisite hostility to be adverse to the true owner?14
To acquire title by adverse possession under N.J.S. 2A:14-6, a claimant must demonstrate possession that is exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, visible, notorious, and hostile for the statutory period of twenty years.15 Hostility in this context, according to the rule adopted in Predham v. Holfester, requires a subjective intent to claim title to land not belonging to the possessor, rather than possession arising from an honest mistake about the boundary.16
No. The established facts reveal that the defendant and her son operated under the belief that the steps and walk were located entirely on her own property, as stipulated at trial.17 The court explicitly states that it has no alternative but to follow the existing law as stated by the Appellate Division in Predham v. Holfester.18 It denies the claim because the possession resulted from mistake rather than an intentional taking.19
The defendant's possession of the 15 inch strip did not have the requisite hostility to be adverse to the true owner.20
Whether the judgment in favor of the defendant on her adverse possession claim is contrary to the weight of the evidence or contrary to the law?21
A judgment rendered after trial is contrary to the law when it fails to apply the correct legal standard to the facts found, such as requiring subjective hostility for adverse possession in cases of boundary mistake.22 The court may adjust factual findings on the extent of possession if not supported by clear and convincing evidence.23
Yes. Although the evidence clearly and convincingly established the defendant's exclusive, continuous, and visible possession of the 15 inch strip under the steps, platform, and walk for more than twenty years, the initial judgment for the defendant cannot stand because it contradicts the legal requirement of subjective hostility.24 The court therefore vacates the judgment in favor of the defendant and enters judgment for the plaintiffs, granting a mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment.25
The judgment in favor of the defendant on her adverse possession claim is contrary to the law.26