The trial court entered a judgment declaring that defendants own the disputed parcel in fee simple subject to all easements of record affecting that parcel. On appeal, plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in declaring that defendants are the owners of the disputed property without finding that defendants' possession was hostile. Defendants initially responded, in their brief, that because they had established open and continuous possession for at least 10 years, there was a presumption of hostility. Defendants continue to argue, however, that their use of the property satisfied the requirement of hostility. We review de novo.
Defendants bear a 'heavy burden' to establish ownership by adverse possession.
In Hoffman , the court held that, in adverse possession cases, open and continuous use does not give rise to a presumption of hostility. If they cannot bring themselves within the pure mistake doctrine, then they must establish hostility by demonstrating a subjective intent to possess the property as its true owner. We begin with the pure mistake doctrine. The mistaken belief, however, must be a pure mistake, not a mistake based upon conscious doubt. The Drakes leased their property from 1924 or 1925 until they purchased it in 1930.