Opinion ID: 2262998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hostile and Claim of Right

Text: [¶ 11] Although [s]ome courts and commentators fail to distinguish between the elements of hostility and claim of right, or simply consider hostility to be a subset of the claim of right requirement[, s ] ee, e.g., Johnson v. Stanley, 96 N.C.App. 72, 384 S.E.2d 577, 579 (1989)[,] ... [u]nder Maine law, the two elements are distinct. Striefel, 1999 ME 111, ¶ 13 n. 7, 733 A.2d at 991. [¶ 12] `Hostile' simply means that the possessor does not have the true owner's permission to be on the land, and has nothing to do with demonstrating a heated controversy or a manifestation of ill will, or that the claimant was in any sense an enemy of the owner of the servient estate. Id. ¶ 13, 733 A.2d at 991 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Permission negates the element of hostility, and precludes the acquisition of title by adverse possession. Id. `Under a claim of right' means that the claimant is in possession as owner, with intent to claim the land as [its] own, and not in recognition of or subordination to [the] record title owner. Id. ¶ 14, 733 A.2d at 991 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 13] Under Maine's common law, as part of the claim of right element, we have historically examined the subjective intentions of the person claiming adverse possession. See Preble v. Me. Cent. R.R. Co., 85 Me. 260, 264, 27 A. 149, 150 (1893); accord Emerson v. Me. Rural Missions Ass'n, Inc., 560 A.2d 1, 3 (Me.1989); McMullen v. Dowley, 483 A.2d 698, 700 (Me.1984). Under this approach, which is considered the minority rule in the country, one who by mistake occupies ... land not covered by his deed with no intention to claim title beyond his actual boundary wherever that may be, does not thereby acquire title by adverse possession to land beyond the true line. Preble, 85 Me. at 264, 27 A. at 150; see also McMullen, 483 A.2d at 700 ([If] the occupier intend[s] to hold the property only if he were in fact legally entitled to it[, the] occupation [is] `conditional' and [cannot] form the basis of an adverse possession claim.). [3] The majority rule in the country is based on French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439 (1831), and recognizes that the possessor's mistaken belief does not defeat a claim of adverse possession. See 16 RICHARD R. POWELL, POWELL ON REAL PROPERTY § 91.05[2] (Michael Allan Wolf ed., 2005). [¶ 14] In 1993, the Legislature enacted 14 M.R.S. § 810-A, which provides: § 810-A. Mistake of boundary line establishes hostility If a person takes possession of land by mistake as to the location of the true boundary line and possession of the land in dispute is open and notorious, under claim of right, and continuous for the statutory period, the hostile nature of the claim is established and no further evidence of the knowledge or intention of the person in possession is required. (Emphasis added.) [¶ 15] In Striefel, we noted that the Legislature inartfully used the terms hostile and claim of right in this provision because a claimant's mistake as to the location of the true boundary pertains to the claim of right element, not to the hostile element. 1999 ME 111, ¶ 15 n.9, 733 A.2d at 992. However, that case did not present us with the opportunity to definitively interpret section 810-A. [¶ 16] Here, the court interpreted section 810-A as eliminating the common law inquiry into the subjective intent of the adverse possession claimant. Thus, although the court found that Dombkowski's occupation of the disputed area was conditional because he mistakenly believed it was his, the court determined that because section 810-A does not require inquiry into the subjective intent of the claimant, Dombkowski established adverse possession by satisfying the other elements of his claim.