Opinion ID: 2637937
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Boundaries of the Contested Property

Text: The superior court found by clear and convincing evidence that Green adversely possessed a parcel defined by a telephone line to the north, Shaw Creek to the east, Old Richardson Highway to the south, and a line 300 feet from the house to the west. The parcel is rectangular, with the house closest to the northern border and roughly equidistant from the east and west borders. To the south and east, the land slopes and becomes a cliff descending to Shaw Creek on the east and Old Richardson highway on the south. Vezey argues that the area defined by the superior court was not adversely possessed by Green. He maintains that the court's reliance on natural boundaries to define the property is without legal precedent, that the area defined by the court includes land not actually possessed by Green, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the court's findings. Judge Savell's use of the road, creek, and telephone line as boundaries poses no legal problem in itself. Natural barriers such as rivers may serve as boundaries in adverse possession cases. [36] Vezey presents no argument why these natural boundaries are themselves objectionable. The more serious issue raised by Vezey is whether Green actually possessed all of the land enclosed by those boundaries. Courts may look to a number of factors in determining what area of land a claimant has actually possessed. Evidence of actual possession must be sufficient to alert a reasonably diligent owner to the possessor's exercise of dominion and control. [37] Visible evidence of use, such as occupation, fencing, and construction of permanent improvements, provides particularly compelling evidence of actual possession. [38] The threshold for legal sufficiency of such physical acts as proof of possession, however, varies with the character of the land. [39] Other factors, such as the possessor's exclusion of other people from the property, [40] community repute, [41] the intent of the adverse possessor, [42] and the extent of the possessor's use as perceived by the record owner [43] may all be relevant to a determination of actual possession. Such evidence is particularly relevant in this case because Green's possession was predicated on a gift; the court found that the record owners recognized her property claim to the bluff during the adverse possession period. The record does not, however, offer clear evidence of where Green or the record owners believed the boundaries of the bluff property to lie. Our inquiry will therefore focus on the physical indicia of use as well as the apparent intent of Green and the record owners. We note that an adverse possessor may claim title only to that area actually possessed for the full statutory period, from the first year to the last: While evidence from later years is relevant to continuity of use, the adverse possessor may not rely on evidence from later years to expand the boundaries of her claim.
The trial court found that Green had used and adversely possessed the land between the house and a telephone line to the north. This conclusion was supported by the evidence, and was not clearly erroneous. To the immediate north of the house, Green built the structure housing her electrical generator, installed a propane tank, and stored gardening supplies. She also cleared undergrowth from the woods as far as the phone line, and when the telephone poles were replaced, arranged to haul out the old logs to use as construction material. In the area between the house and the telephone line, to both the northeast and northwest of the house, she raised chickens in a movable pen. The telephone line was also the border of the land originally held by the Harrilds; the record contains no indication that they intended to give Green less than the full northern portion of the bluff.
Green's use of the eastern area of the claimed property was also sufficient to demonstrate actual use for purposes of adverse possession. To the immediate east of the house, Green planted a garden. Further out, at a distance of some forty feet from the house, she put in fruit trees and perennials. She also cleared a trail leading from the house southeast to the edge of the bluff. In the northeast area of the bluff, she set up a picnic table and bench, and used the area for outdoor lunches. In addition, Green extracted rock from the eastern bluff throughout the adverse possession period. The extraction areas were in the northeast corner of the property, at the top of the bluff, and in the southeast corner at the bottom of the bluff. A neighbor offered strong testimony that the bluff side of Shaw Creek overlooking Billie Harrild's housean area defined by Green's claimed eastern borderwas locally reputed to belong to Green, and Green testified that she believed her grandmother had given her that piece of the [family's] property across from Shaw Creek. In Bentley Family Trust v. Lynx Enterprises, we found that an adverse possessor took title to property bordered by a highway and a slough, in part because the record owner and adverse possessor had treated the highway and slough as boundaries enclosing the possessor's unified parcel of property. [44] Following Bentley Family Trust, evidence that Green, the record owners, and others in the community believed that Green owned land bordered by Shaw Creek weighs significantly in favor of her actual possession claim for this part of the property. Much of the eastern section of the property is a steep slope descending to Shaw Creek. As Vezey's engineer testified, the property is difficult to use; he suggested that a landowner's use for the area might reasonably be limited to toboggan runs. Because the actual use required of adverse possessors varies with the nature of the property, [45] we conclude that Green's activities on the claimed land to the east of the house are sufficient to show actual use, and that Judge Savell correctly awarded her the eastern area of the bluff property.
Green's use of the land between the house and the Old Richardson Highway to the south was less extensive than her use of the eastern area. Given the character of the land, however, her activities are still sufficient to show actual use. Like the eastern side of the property, the area to the south is a bluff face descending steeply to a natural boundary: the old Richardson highway. [46] Unlike the eastern area, there is not a significant flat area between the house and the slope; Ken Colette indicated that the steep drop-off began only about thirty-five feet from the house. As was discussed above, Green extracted rock from the southeast corner of the property, at the base of the bluff. In addition, she cleared trees to the south of the cabin in order to see the Alaska Range from her house. Over a period of years, she enlarged the cleared area to the southwest in order to bring more mountain peaks into view. Green testified that she had originally planned to plant lilac bushes along the cleared southern slope, but decided to keep the natural foliage because she didn't want to look out on anything that looked citified like that. Given the rugged nature of the bluff's south slope, Green's activities in clearing trees to the south and southwest and quarrying for rock to the southeast are sufficient to support the trial court's finding that she adversely possessed the area.
The superior court found that Green had by adverse possession established title to property extending 300 feet to the west of the house. Although the court did not specify what evidence of actual use supported its conclusion, the record contains evidence that Green used at least some of the area to the west of the house. There is also some indication that Green believed herself to be the owner of land extending to the western end of her grandparents' lot: In the 1980s, she looked into purchasing the adjacent land to the west. However, it is not clear which, if any, of Green's physical uses supports the superior court's finding that her possession extended 300 feet west from the house. Therefore, we remand the case for additional findings supporting the trial court's conclusion, or for reconsideration of the western boundary of Green's property. Green and other witnesses testified to three uses of the land to the west of the house. To the southwest, Green cleared trees to improve the view from the house. To the northwest, Green testified that she raised chickens and turkeys. Nothing in the record indicates how far to the west these activities extended. In addition, beginning in 1982, Green cleared and used an old road running across the western portion of the claimed property; she put a chain across the road at the border of the neighboring property and mounted No Trespassing signs. The road cut up from Old Richardson Highway and across the neighboring property to reach the top of the bluff. Green invested substantial time and labor in clearing the access road: She testified that she removed trees four inches in diameter from a swath wide enough to drive through. The record suggests two possible locations for the access road cleared by Green. Most testimony suggests that her road cuts through the navigable flat land directly to the west of the house, but other testimony indicates that the road runs along the telephone line at the northern edge of the property. In addition, it is unclear from the record whether the location of Green's chain across the road correlates to the 300-foot boundary defined by the court, or whether the chained section was in fact nearer or farther than 300 feet from the house. Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom [47] provides some benchmarks for determining what actual use is sufficient to establish adverse possession. In that case, we found that the claimants' use of the north end of a disputed property constituted adverse possession, while their use of the south end did not. [48] The possessors had built structures, planted trees, and resided on the north end of the property, [49] but in the south they had only used pre-existing trails in connection with subsistence and recreation, picked up litter, and allegedly placed stakes at the corners of the claimed property. [50] Green's use of the western area of the bluff property goes beyond the use found inadequate in Nome 2000: She cleared a road through the woods, marked her border clearly with a chain, cleared trees, and raised poultry. Depending how far west these activities extended, they may be sufficient to support the court's award of property extending 300 feet west of the house. We remand this issue to the trial court for further findings regarding Green's actual use of that area.