Also known as: mistaken boundaries
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A good-faith but erroneous belief about the location of a true property boundary that satisfies the hostility element of adverse possession and permits tacking of successive periods of possession.
Meredith Maxwell bought a lakeside cabin eight years ago and relied on an old subdivision map showing a wooden dock and shoreline strip as part of her lot. Each summer she rented the cabin with dock access, maintained the structure, and excluded others from the area. Her predecessors had used the same dock and strip every summer for twelve prior years under the identical map. When the true owner demanded removal, Meredith asserted title through adverse possession.
Miguel Mendoza leased a hillside parcel for summer music festivals and built a stage and concessions on a sixty-foot strip he believed belonged to his lessor. A predecessor promoter had run identical festivals on the same strip for two earlier summers under the same mistaken plat. After ten total years of seasonal use visible to the public, the record owner sued for ejectment.
Appellee Ross and appellant Marengo Cave Company owned adjoining tracts of land in Crawford County, Indiana. The only entrance to Marengo Cave was located on appellant's land, roughly 700 feet from the boundary line, and the cave itself extended under portions of both properties. In September 1883, young people discovered the cave entrance on land then owned by Stewart. Successive owners immediately took possession of the entire cave, explored it, publicized its existence through newspapers and other means, charged admission fees to visitors, excluded those who would not pay, constructed concrete walks and steps inside, and provided guides, all while claiming ownership of the whole cavern and believing it lay entirely under their own land. Ross had lived near the cave since 1903 and bought his land in 1908. He first visited the cave in 1895 and paid admission on multiple occasions thereafter, but he and his predecessors never occupied any part of the underground passages, and the cave operators' activities did not interfere with his surface use. No one realized that the cave extended under Ross's land until a 1932 court-ordered survey by a civil engineer established the boundary line through the cave. Ross had requested a survey in 1929. He then sued to quiet title to the portion of the cave under his land, appellant answered and cross-claimed to quiet title to the entire cave, a jury found for Ross, and the trial court denied appellant's motion for a new trial based on insufficient evidence.
View caseYes. The belief that the disputed strip lies within the claimant's own parcel supplies the claim of right that renders possession hostile to the true owner.
Supporting sources
Yes. Privity through conveyance or lease allows tacking so the combined periods satisfy the statutory duration.
Supporting sources
Yes. For vacation, garden, or festival property, regular seasonal occupation matches how a true owner would use the land and therefore counts as continuous.
Supporting sources
…to take irrespective of his right, which governs.” 7 Powell, supra , § 1013(2) at 91-17 (citations omitted). D. Mistaken Boundaries Claims of adverse possession frequently arise where, as here, an apparent misunderstanding as to the location of a property line is discovered many years after the fact. “The more widely…