This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 4 ). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15
- 1315 Randal V. Johnson, et al., Respondents,

vs. Robert A. Fischer, Appellant, County of Sibley, Respondent. Filed May 2, 2016 Affirmed Hooten , Judge Sibley County Distric t Court File No. 72

- CV

- 14

- 4 Roger H. Hippert, Nierengarten & Hippert, Ltd., New Ulm, Minnesota (for respondents Johnson, et al.) Kenneth R. White, Law Office of Kenneth R. White, P.C., Mankato, Minnesota (for appella nt) David E. Schauer, Sibley County Attorney, Winthrop, Minnesota (for respondent county) Considered and decided by Larkin , Presiding Judge; Hooten , Judge; and Kalitowski , Judge

. 

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.2 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N HOOTEN , Judge In this appeal of a boundary dispute between farmers , appellant argues that the district court erred in determin ing that respondents established ownership of a portion of his land by adverse possession and by concluding that he did not meet his burden of establishing adverse possession over a portion of respondents’ land . We affirm. FACTS Respondent Delores A. Johnson owns two adjacent parcel s of farmland in fee simple , one of which is a 40

- acre parcel. Delores Johnson owns the parcels subject to

contract s for deed held by her son, respondent Randal V . Johnson, and his wife, respondent Pamela L. John son. The neighboring farmland to the west and north is owned by appellant Robe rt A. Fischer. The Johnsons and Fischer use their resp ective land for crop farming. In January 2014, the Johnsons asked the di strict court to determine that they had acquired title to certain tracts of property through adverse possession and boundary by practical location and asked the district court to determine the boundary line between their land and Fischer’s land

. According to the parties’ deeds, s ome of the tracts of property that the Johnsons claimed ownership of through adverse possession, inc luding the tracts in dispute on this appeal , belonged to Fischer

. In a counterclaim, Fi scher claimed ownership of two tracts of th e Johnsons’ land by adverse possession and boundary by practical location and asked the district court to determine the boundary line between h is land and the Johnsons’ land. In deciding the parties’ claims, the district court numbered the five disputed t racts for clarity and determined, among other things, that the Johnsons had3

established adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence over Tracts 3 and 4 , but that Fischer had not met his burden of proof of establishing adverse possession of any portion of the Johnson s’ land. Fischer moved for amended findin gs or a new trial. The district court denied the motion for a new trial, but amende d two findings in order to further clarify and support its determinations regardi ng Tract 4

. On appeal, Fischer challenges only the district court’s determinations with regard to the Johnsons ’ adverse possession claims to Tracts 3 and 4 of his land and the district court’s denial of one of his claims of adverse possession of the Johns ons’ land. D E C I S I O N The party seeking to establish adverse possession must show by clear and convincing evidence “that the property has been used in an actual, open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile manner for 15 years.” Rogers v. Moore , 603 N.W .2d 650, 657 (Minn. 1999); see Minn. Stat. § 541.02 (2014). Whether the elements of adverse possession have been established is a question of fact. Ganje v. Schuler , 659 N.W.2d 261, 266 (Minn. App. 2003). We uphold a district court’s findings of fact un less they are clearly erroneous and give due regard “to the opportunity of the [district] court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. ” Rogers , 603 N.W.2d at 656 (quotation omitted). In reviewing the district court’s findings, “ we view the record in the light most favorable to the ju dgment of the district court.” Id. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous “ only if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (quotation s omitted). “But whether the findings of fact support a district court’s conclusions of law4

and judgment is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Ebenhoh v. Hodgman , 642 N.W.2d 104, 108 (Minn. App. 2002). The Johnsons’ Claim Regarding Tract 3 Fis c her’s land is located to the west and north of the Johnsons’ land and is b ordered on the west by Clear L ake County Park

. T here is a county ditch from Clear Lake that runs slightly north of the southern border of the western part of Fischer’s land, but th en turns sharpl y to the south onto the Johnson s ’ land and then continue s east

. At trial, Randal Johnson described the county ditch as 35 to 40 feet wide and approximately five to seven feet deep and stated that it ge t s deeper as it continues east. Tract 3 , which was desc ribed by the district court as a “roughly 50 x 120” foot rectangular shaped area of land, is bordered on the north by Fisher’s land, on the west by
the county ditch running south through the Johnson s ’ land , o n the east by a large cottonwood tree located at a point on the deeded line even with the county ditch if it had continued running east instead of turning southward , and on the south by the Johnson s ’ land. According to the parties’ deeds, Tract 3 belonged to Fischer , but the J ohnsons claimed ownership of the tract by adve rse possession. The district court concluded that the Johnsons had established adverse possession over Tract 3 by clear and convincing evidence. Fischer challenges the district court’s determination that th e Johnsons established ownership of Tract 3 by adverse possession. At trial, Randal Johnson testifi ed that, since the mid

- 1960s, his family had continuously and exclusively f armed Tract 3. Pamela Johnson testified that she knew her husband and his father had farmed Tract 3 sin ce5

approximately 1986. The district court found that aerial photographs of Tract 3 that were taken in 2004, 2006, 2009, and 2010 “show that the farmland in [Tract 3] is part of the same farming operation as the Johnsons’ 40

- acre par cel immediately to the east.” In addition, t he district court received into evidence a numb er of Farm Service Agency (FSA) aerial photographs of Tract 3 that were taken as early as 1950. The district court found that one of these photogra phs, which was t aken in 1971, seemed to show that Fischer was not farming Tract 3 and that the other photographs, while not definitive, were not inconsistent with the Johnsons farming Tract 3. The district court found that the photographs “were supplemented through testimony by the [Johnsons] that they farmed the land in [Tract 3] for as long as they can remember, and longer than the required 15 consecutive years to establish adverse possession. ” Based upon this evidence, the district court concluded that the Johnsons “established more than the necessary 15 years of actual, open, hostile, continuous and exclusive occupancy of [Tract 3]” and that the Johnsons had establishe d adverse possession of Tract 3 by clear and convincing evidence. In support of his contention that the district court erred in finding adverse possession, Fischer argues that the district court’s findings with regard to Tract 3 were inadequate because the district court merely recounted the testimony of the w itnesses without commenting on their credibility. Fischer is correct that the district court did not specifically comment on the credibility of the witnesses, including the Johnsons. But, the district court, after noting the testimony of the parties and their witnesses regarding their disputed claims, specifically found that the Johnsons had “met their burden to shown adverse possession” and were “entitled to the land and [Tract 3] based on their acquisition6

by adverse possession.” In doing so, the distr ict court implicitly found the Johnsons’ testimony regarding their adverse possession of Tract 3 to be credible. See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik , 765 N.W.2d 94, 99 (Minn. App. 2009) (noting that the district court’s findings “implicitly indicate[d]” that it fo und certain testimony credible). Fischer also argues that the record shows that the Johnsons ’ use of Tract 3 was not exclusive. Specifically, he claims, consistent with his testimony at trial , disputing the Johnsons’ adverse possession claim, that he w ould ba ck his farm equipment into Tract 3

. T he district court found that while it was possible that Fischer backed into Tract 3 with his farm equipment, there was no evidence that Fischer had planted his crops in Tract 3

. Even if this court were to agree that Fischer’s testimony indicated that he planted in the tract, the district court credited the Johnsons’ testimony regarding their exclusive use of Tract 3. Furthermore, while the district court seemed to interpret Fischer’s testimony as indicating
tha t he backed equipment into Tract 3, it found that this claimed entry onto the property would have been too insignificant to defeat the Johnsons’ claim of adverse possession. Fischer challenges this finding , arguing that if he backed into Tract 3 in any ye ar, it would break the adverse possession time period and preclude the Johnsons’ ownership of the parcel by adverse possession. But, “brief and insubstantial entries” onto the disputed property are not enough to defeat a claim of adverse possession. See Ebenhoh , 642 N.W.2d at 109 (concluding that owner’s brief entries into disputed area t o straighten a creek and assist adverse possession claimant with his farming operation were insufficient to defeat claim of adverse possession). Although Fisher’s testimony is not clear regarding how often he would back his equipment into Tract 3, he indicate d that he would back in with a digger7

or planter and that how far he backed into the tract varied from year to year depending on who had started planting first. Because the record shows that Fischer’s backing into Tract 3 was only occasional and insubstantial, the district court’s finding that Fischer’s use of the land did not defeat the Johnsons’ claim of adverse possession was not clearly erroneous. Finally, Fischer argues that the district court’s determination that the Johnsons established adverse possession is inconsistent with FSA aerial photographs , which he contends show that the Johnsons did not farm Tract 3. The district court found, contrary to Fischer’s contentions, that “there is no physical evidence or photographs clearly showing

. . . Fischer’s crops lying in [ Tract 3]

. ” In fact, the district court found that one of the FSA photographs “seems to show that Fischer was farming land on a li ne consistent with the extension of the line of th e ditch to the cottonwood tree,” which was consistent with the Johnsons ’ testimony that they, and not Fischer, farmed south of that line. In rejecting Fischer’s claim that the FSA drawings on the photograp hs were indicative of his ownership and possession of Tract 3, t he district court noted that these FSA photographs contain a disclaimer, which states that the drawings on the photographs were not meant to be di spositive of actual ownership. Rather than ac cepting these FSA photographs as determinative of the issue of whether there was adverse possession, the district court
appear s to have been persuaded by the evidence of other aerial photographs of Tract 3, whi ch had been taken in 2004, 2006, 2009, and 201 0, and which “ clearly show[ed]” that Tract 3 was “part of the same farmi ng operation as the Johnson s ’ 40

- acre parcel immediately to the east.” In light of our deference to the district court’s credibility determinations and ability to weigh the evidence, Thorson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety , 5198

N.W.2d 490 , 493 (Minn. App. 1994), we conclude that the district court did not err in rejecting Fischer’s arguments regarding the FSA photographs and in finding that other aerial photographs supported the Johnsons’ a dv erse possession claim to Tract 3. The Johnsons’ Claim Regarding Tract 4
Tract 4 is a narrow triangle of land running the length of the northern border of the Johnsons’ 40

- acre parce l , which is bordered to the north by Fischer’s land

. In clai ming ownership of Tract 4, the Johnsons argued that the northwest corner of thei r parcel should be an iron post located 18.5 feet north of th e deeded corner , connected by a straight line to the deeded northeast corner of their parcel

. The district court conclu ded that the Johnsons had established adverse possession over Tract 4 by clear and convi ncing evidence. Fischer challenges the district court’s conclusion that the Johnsons established ownership of Tract 4 by adverse possession

. Although Fischer testi fied that he had always farmed further south than the iron post , Randal Johnson testified that he had always farmed up to the iron post in the northwest corner

. Pamela Johnson also testified that she remembere d using post s as the northwest corner of the p arcel dating back to the early or mid

- 1990s. The district court credited the Johnsons’ testimony. The district court also found that the aerial photographs from 2004, 2009, and 2010 confirmed that the Johnsons’ crops were planted on a line that runs at a slight diagonal from the northeast corner of the Johnsons’ parcel to the iron post located north of the parcel’s northwest corner. Based upon these photographs and the Johnsons’ credible testimony , the district court determined that the parties consistently farmed on their respective sides of the line extending from the iron post in the northwest corner to the deeded northea st corner. We defer to the district9

court’s credibility determinations. Rogers , 603 N.W.2d at 656. Given the district court’s acceptance of the Johnsons’ testimony regarding their farming practices , the district court did not err in determining that the Johnsons established ownership by adverse possession
over Tract 4. Fischer’s Counterclaim Regarding Tract 4
F ischer asserted a counterclaim regarding the opposite end of Tract 4 , seeking to establish ownership by adverse possession over a portion of the Johnsons’ land by moving the northeast corner of the Johnsons’ 40

- acre parcel 8.1 feet south of the deeded corn er. Fischer contended that the boundary of the Johnsons’ parcel should line up with the
pro perty line of the parcel of land across a county roa d to the east. Randal Johnson testified that, until 2011 or 2012, Fischer had never planted his crop s south of the surveyed corn er. The district court credited Randal Johnson’s testimony and denied Fischer’s c ounterclaim. Fischer appeals from the district court’s denial of his adverse possession claim regarding the northeastern corner of the Johnsons’ parcel

. Fischer claims that the parties agreed that the property line should be at the middle of the field approach that connects the parties’ land to the adjacent county road and that therefore the undisp uted evidence requires that the middle of the field approa ch be deemed the northeast corner of the Johnsons’ parcel

. Randal Johnson testified that the boundary line between his and Fischer’s property at the northeast corner of his property was “always” in the center of the field approach that connected the parti es’ fields to the adjacent county road . Fischer testified that he “was always told to farm to the Sportsman’s 40 line,” the northern border of the tract of land located directly to the east across the county road from the Johnsons’ parc el. Fischer10

contends that his testimony regarding the northeast corner is consistent with Randal Johnson’s and that, therefore, the undisputed evidence establishes that the parties used the center of the field approach as the dividing line for more than 15 years. Fis cher impliedly argues that the center of the field approach is south of the deeded northeast corner of the Johnsons’ parcel. However, Fischer point s to no e vidence in the record showing that the center of the field approach is south of the deeded corner

. Furthermore, Randal Johnson testified that Fischer planted south of the surveyed northeast corner for the first time in 2011 or 2012, and the district court cr edited this testimony. Because the record does not support Fischer’s contention that the “undi sputed evidence” shows that the parties had used a point south of
the deeded northeast corner as the corner for over 15 years, the district court properly determined that Fischer failed to establish adverse possession over any part of the Johnsons’ 40

- acre parcel. Affirmed .