Opinion ID: 170106
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Findings Support Rejection of Adverse Possession Defense

Text: The district court made a number of findings that fatally undercut Brantley's adverse possession claim. For instance, the court emphasized Brantley never paid taxes on Sherrill Farm and cited Anderson v. Francis, 177 Okla. 47, 57 P.2d 619, 622 (1936): The payment of taxes is not a controlling circumstance, but it is one of the means whereby a claim of ownership is asserted, and the failure to pay taxes for so long a time tends to weaken a claim of ownership by adverse possession. The court also found [t]he boundaries of the land Carl Brantley claims to own by adverse possession have evolved to suit his purpose, Aplt.App. 208, and explicitly found Brantley's testimony was not believable when it conflicted with the testimony of other witnesses. But the district court ultimately determined Brantley's adverse possession claim failed because his use was not exclusive for fifteen years. To meet the requirement of exclusivity, Brantley must show an exclusive dominion over the land and an appropriation of it to his own use and benefit. Two persons cannot hold one piece of property adversely to each other at the same time, and where two persons have entered upon land, [the one] who has the better title will be deemed to be in possession. Sears v. State Dep't of Wildlife Conservation, 549 P.2d 1211, 1213 (Okla.1976) (quotation omitted). Based on the evidence produced at trial, the district court found a number of facts indicating Brantley shared the use of Sherrill Farm with others: (1) Brantley's father, Bobby, had a grazing lease on Sherrill Farm until 1992; (2) OSU conducted significant activities on Sherrill Farm during the relevant period; (3) Weyerhaeuser also conducted activities such as road maintenance and gravel sampling during the relevant period; (4) by agreement with Weyerhaeuser, Sherrill Farm is part of an area managed by the ODWC; (5) under the ODWC agreement, Sherrill Farm is open to the public and hunters have used the property; (6) horses not belonging to Brantley ran on Sherrill Farm; and (7) Brantley's brother also claimed grazing rights to Sherrill Farm by adverse possession. We agree with Weyerhaeuser that these findings support the district court's conclusion Brantley did not use Sherrill Farm to the exclusion of the record owner and other permissive users.