Opinion ID: 1402745
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Elements of Adverse Possession

Text: The `open and notorious' element [of adverse possession] requires that the possessor openly evince a purpose to hold dominion over the property with such hostility that will give the non-possessory owner notice of the adverse claim. Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc. v. Royal Crown Bottling Co., Inc., 824 S.W.2d 878, 880 (Ky.1992) ( citing Sweeten v. Sartin, 256 S.W.2d 524, 526 (Ky.1953)). To be `open and notorious' the possession must be conspicuous and not secret, so that the legal title holder has notice of the adverse use. Id. ( citing Sweeten, 256 S.W.2d at 526). Thus, [i]t is the legal owner's knowledge, either actual or imputable, of another's possession of lands that affects the ownership. Id. ( citing Am. Jur.2d Adverse Possession, § 71 (1986)). Moreover, the character of the property, its physical nature and the use to which it has been put, determine the character of the acts necessary to put the true owner on notice of the hostile claim. Id. ( citing Ely v. Fuson, 297 Ky. 325, 180 S.W.2d 90 (1944)). And, in Le Moyne v. Litton, 159 Ky. 652, 167 S.W. 912 (1914), the question was presented as to what established a well-marked or a well-defined boundary. Id. at 913. The tract in question involved a portion of land in Whitley County which had been cleared and cultivated and upon which was erected a house, with the remainder of the tract left as woodlands, which the Defendant ha[d] used in a general way as farmers ordinarily use such lands. Id. The respondent contended that the proof for Defendant failed to establish a well-marked or well-defined boundary. Id. It was shown by evidence that, when the survey was made, all the corners called for in the certificate of the Cordell survey were still standing and marked; and that there were marked line trees on all the lines except one, which [passed] through cleared ground. Id. at 913-14. Upholding the marking of the line by marked trees, [4] the Court noted that [t]he purpose of marked lines is to give notice to the world that the possession and claim of the occupant is co-extensive therewith. If the lines are sufficiently marked, that purpose is served. Id. Also, in Le Moyne v. Neal, 168 Ky. 292, 181 S.W. 1119 (1916), our predecessor Court noted: When D.B. Neal gave the land to his son, the appellee, he went upon it with him and showed to him the boundary of it and the marked line which surrounded it, and appellee has claimed to be the owner of it ever since, to the boundary showed him by his father; that the corner trees to the boundary of the land, with the exception of one, which has been cut down and the stump of its remains, were all marked in the ordinary way as corner trees are marked to land boundaries; that the corner tree which has been cut down, when standing, was marked in the same way; that all of the lines surrounding the lands are marked upon the trees along the lines sufficiently to enable one to follow the line around the tract and to locate the boundary by the markings upon the trees, by which the lines pass. All of the markings upon the trees appear to be very old, and were there before Gilreath entered upon the land, and was the same marked line to which D.B. Neal had claimed for many years. Id. at 1121. Upon such evidence, the Court concluded: It is apparent that the evidence going to uphold the contention that the land is surrounded by a well-marked and well-defined boundary is sufficient to take the case to the jury, and, there being no evidence to the contrary, the verdict of the jury, if it found that there was a well defined and marked boundary, was not contrary to the evidence and was sufficient to support the verdict. Id. For context, it is appropriate to note that the appellee in Neal also cut trees on the property, as did Appellees here. Id. at 1120. It has also been said: It is difficult to lay down a precise rule applicable to all cases, as much must depend upon the nature and situation of the property, and the uses to which it can be applied. For example, in the case of a farm, if the possession is open and notorious, comporting with the ordinary management of farms, it is not necessary that the whole farm be either improved or inclosed [sic], at least where the unimproved part, as woodland, is subservient to and connected with that which is improved, and, for the same reason, the rule requiring actual and visible occupancy will be more strictly construed in an old and populous country, where land is usually improved and inclosed [sic], than in a new country recently settled, in which the land is only partially improved. Culton v. Simpson, 265 Ky. 343, 96 S.W.2d 856, 860 (1936) (The size of this property is not disproportionate to its use as a farm. It was not all cleared, and perhaps not all inclosed [sic], but fifty years ago that was true of many farms in Kentucky.). It was also noted in Gillis v. Curd, 117 F.2d 705 (6th Cir.1941), that: According to the settled doctrine of the above statutes as declared by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, when applied to lands in a community where fences are not customary, a person, by entering upon a part of a tract or parcel of uninclosed [sic] land in the name of the whole, may gain title to all of it by adverse possession. When such person settles within a large body of wild, uncultivated, unenclosed [sic], vacant land, his title by adverse possession, and those claiming under him, ripens to the following boundaries: (1) to buildings, clearings or inclosed [sic] lands where maintained for the statutory period, (2) to boundaries kept marked for such period and in such way as to give to the owner of the land ... notice that it was a marked boundary and that some person was claiming to be in hostile possession of the land therein, (3) by putting to record in the County Clerk's office of the County where the land is located for the statutory period, a deed describing its boundaries by natural or artificial objects so that it can be run by a surveyor, although the boundary described in the deed need not be sufficient to constitute a well-marked boundary without the deed. Id. at 708; see also Feldman Lumber Company v. Meece, 2006-CA-001812-MR, 2006-CA-001841-MR, 2007 WL 2332585 at  (Ky.App.2007) (For nearly 30 years, Defendants have marked the outside boundary with `No Hunting' signs thereby giving open and notorious notice of their claim.) ( reversed on other grounds by Meece v. Feldman Lumber Company, 290 S.W.3d 631 (Ky.2009)). Quite pointedly, the Court in Panter v. Miller, 698 S.W.2d 634, 636 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1985), observed that: One does not ordinarily fence in inaccessible mountain land to show ownership. It is ordinarily done by marking or painting trees and putting up signs. This is exactly what the defendant did. The land was not susceptible to farming. About the only other thing the defendant could have done to make his possessory claim any clearer to the public at large would have been to hire armed guards to shoot anyone who set foot on the land. (Emphasis added). The Court in Beam v. Kerlee, 120 N.C.App. 203, 461 S.E.2d 911, 919 (1995), also explained: When questioned about other people's use of the land, defendant testified that he put up no trespassing signs in 1991 and asked hunters he found on the property to leave. Defendant said he had been running people off the land long before he posted the property  for twenty plus years. This evidence was sufficient to support defendant's claim that his possession of the land was exclusive and adverse as to all others.