Opinion ID: 1668078
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: hostile possession and claim of right

Text: The requirement that possession be hostile and under a claim of right before a party can acquire title through adverse possession is imposed so that the property owner will not be lulled into a false sense of security and thereby be induced to refrain from asserting his right to the property by entry or legal action. [2] This Court has held that a permissive occupant of property cannot acquire title to property through adverse possession. See Stewart v. Childress, 269 Ala. 87, 111 So.2d 8 (1959). In speaking to the issue of hostile possession, this Court has consistently taken the view that it is immaterial whether an adverse possessor would have claimed the property had he known of his mistaken claim to it, for it is the adverse possessor's intent to assert dominion over the property that causes his possession to be deemed hostile. See Reynolds v. Rutland, 365 So.2d 656 (Ala.1978); Guy v. Lancaster, 250 Ala. 287, 34 So.2d 499 (1948); Whitlow v. Moore, 246 Ala. 472, 21 So.2d 253 (1945). Furthermore, in addressing the other issue of claim of right, this Court stated the following: Possession, to be adverse, must be held under a claim of right, and there can be no adverse possession without an intention to claim title. Hence it is essential to the proper determination of the character of the possession to consider the intention with which it was taken and held. If one occupies land up to a certain fence, because he believes that to be the line of his land, but not having any intention to claim up to the fence, if it should be beyond the line, the intent to claim title does not exist coincident with the possession, and the possession up to the fence is not, therefore, adverse. Hess v. Rudder, 117 Ala. 525, 528, 23 So. 136 (1898). (Emphasis added.) See Tanner v. Dobbins, 255 Ala. 671, 53 So.2d 549 (1951). The record reveals that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have consistently possessed the property located on the north side of the old fence line with the intention of claiming it as their own. None of the testimony contained in the record reveals a contrary position. Therefore, this Court finds that the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title did possess the property located on the north side of the old fence line in a hostile fashion and under a claim of right.