possession and the second issue being whether or not a mortgage foreclosure action has the effect of foreclosing the rights of a person who may have an adverse possession claim turn in the first issue the trial court was incorrect in my giving every presumption in favor of the record titleholder in this never clearly states for the disputed area who the true title owner of record was however the record including the joint stipulation entered by the parties clearly sets forth that film or my client owned the property nor also referred to cedar tree those those names all mean the same thing basically there is a creek that runs in the remote part of warren county and on that the disputed areas bordered on the south by this creek and on the north by a fence line my client claims ownership to the disputed area and the appellate claim on the ship to the disputed area two different sections of it because their land than the tree with with fillmore being given every presumption barzan toxins were left with the with the burden of trying to prove all of the elements of that verse possession for a period of twenty years they took the was and the reason is is that they use that they show isn't adverse an adverse of course doesn't mean that they're up there with spears and shocking things or anything like that it just means that they're serving ownership to the case so i can't tell you specifically who paid for the actual construction of that i can tell you that there was evidence in the record that there was a subsequent fence that was further south and then when this new need a lesser showing to dominion but if you look at the well lever case that back aisha's hate going out and making a trail through the property or maintaining that trail isn't enough to show two men and in this case you've got two he does occasionally walk on it as he stated so as i stated their reliance on this neat inclosure argument i guess fails here because if the court wants to accept that did not take any notice of the fact that there was evidence in the record that the land to the north of this creek is inaccessible by automobile or anything above foot by thompson and byers the only way they get to this property with any means of transportation would be through my client's property and there was evidence in the record that there are actually gates along this fence that would allow my client access to this disputed year so you've got basically less than a one percent chance six out of three hundred sixty five to catch somebody on the property my client's testimony was that you know he had maintained south of that fence by clear in some brush but he was not there every day either  and i guess the point of it being the i'll go to the runner the runner here being the person that had legal title to the property that being my client every presumption should have been given to him and i don't think that's the case because the trial court never clearly says who is the legal title holder for this property they never say that and part of the reason is that because of the apollo they pelleas were stuck on that eight hundred ninety five survey which is a drawling of crude at the time i'm sure it was always been that that dotted line on that survey as opposed to the solid lines represents a fence line although there was never any evidence in the record that there was in fact a fence line there and eight hundred ninety five our contention is the dotted line line because why would these people have gotten together and talked about this fence line even though there is no evidence in the record that somebody her or knew that this was actually going to be an agreed upon division fence that that's that or claim in their complaint but it's there's no evidence of this in the record that there was a conversation between the predecessor owner saying they were going to make this the division one they got together and supposedly build the fence but who knows if it was agreed upon to on the second issue which it it is a little like this is definitely a legal issue and it wasn't raised at trial as much as it was raised in the motion to dismiss is this effect on this foreclosure action which happened in one thousand nine hundred six where my client bought the property he bought it at a sh you have to make sure you serve all of the no or the all of the parties of record that have an interest in the property with personal service but there is a purpose than for unknown owners unknown or is being people that  have a claim to it but you don't know and i guess my point with that is there want anybody there that there were people on this property on a daily basis to know who they were so they are not owners basically wisconsin case of a set like even though that was a terrible result for that person and you've got to have some phonology in the law and so when you go and buy something at a sheriff's sale you presumably violet's in that the the legal description in that rights they would that that presumes that they have a legal right to be on the property to begin with it's what i would call ground close to the creek if you ever kid it played out in the woods it's you know the marginal friendship between the creek in the forgotten ground so it doesn't hold a lot of value as far as caught on it and here i mean did basically at that point assert my rights to that if i actually have a good title to it in an adverse possession claim but that wasn't done and the fact of the matter remains those two ceding that portion of the united states to mexico we don't that fence and the other thing would be when you have conflicting issues with disputed areas a natural boundary versus a man binary i think the law has to be that the natural boundary governs especially when it's that that's the boundary that's listed in the legal description of the word from a rural part of the room we don't get everything surveyed in fact we were they surveyed the armors are inherently cheap they testified to the fact that yes in one location the fence was moved away from the tree because if we could watch through the fence the corner never did define what was meant by the north bank of the gre and this is just part of his homestead and he walks on the property of part of his homestead just six figures a year probably that's how often he gets to the other side the group that was his testimony will if i  there for years and years there's a change in ownership there's a change in character and there's a change in use consistent with the change in character the progress no longer pargeter it becomes his residential property he uses it as someone would use residential property strictly recreational purposes but the distinction between the cases cited where someone running a former across an enclosed property is that this is not on a closed while this property was or we don't have that's all we have is that the people who got together to build the fans were the owners of the land on both sides of the fence and the owners of the land on both sides of the fence determine where the fence should be rebuilt and in one case they moved it to one location so that it wouldn't be in the middle of the grid we have that who paid for that you know we don't know the french law office that obligation on both parties equally and we don't have any evidence wants out of the north bank of cedar tree and that nearly puts their ownership in my opinion south of the tree i don't agree that disagree with mr mcmillan but they own the whole crew too i think that's right because sometimes you the know so it's not like it's a small i'm noticeable dish and it's right there and the fact remains there is nothing in the record and i've looked to indicate that there is knowledge agreement that this was a division since the testimony from the a police and the witnesses are only fit if it was moved further north not because we're going to move the promenade on that because exactly as justice o'brien indicates because away it happens all the time in the city river and so that fact that there is no nothing in the record to indicate the division fence other than what they put in their complaint but never proved by clear and convincing evidence