Opinion ID: 2637937
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Alleged Parol Gift Reinforces Green's Adverse Possession Claim.

Text: Vezey argues that because Green held the bluff property as a gift from her grandparents, her possession was permissive. Therefore, he claims, she cannot meet the hostility requirement for adverse possession. We reject this argument because possession of land based on a gift is not the same as possession by permission of the true owner. A donee who accepts a gift of land asserts a property right independent of the record owner's. The possessor's use of land in these circumstances is not permissive because the possessor's claim is not subordinate to the record owner's title; it is instead an assertion of ownership in the possessor's own right. Almost all state courts concur that land transferred by parol gift may become the donee's property through adverse possession. [28] Most require that claimants prove the donor's intent to transfer ownership by clear and convincing evidence. [29] This focus on the record owner's intent is in keeping with our own cases requiring adverse possession claimants to prove that record owners did not intend to permit use of the land by the claimant. [30] When a record owner gives property as a gift, the gift strengthens the possessor's claims to the property by establishing that the possessor claims full ownership, and that the record owner knows of her claim. We conclude that a parol gift of land, when proven by clear and convincing evidence, establishes two presumptions helpful to the adverse possession claimant. First, the donee's claim to the property is presumptively hostile to the donor. As we have explained of the relationship between buyers and sellers of land, once the grantor has purported to convey property, neither he nor his grantee believe that the grantee's possession is subordinate to the grantor's title. [31] Similarly, when a gift has been made, and both the record owner and the possessor believe that the possessor owns the property, the possessor's claim is hostile. Second, when a possessor's claim to property is founded on a gift from the record owner, we will presume that the notoriety requirement has been satisfied. The function of the notoriety requirement is to afford the true owner an opportunity for notice. [32] When the record owner herself gave the property away, such notice may be presumed. [33] In its decision below, the trial court did not determine whether the alleged initial gift of land had taken place, although its findings strongly suggest that a gift was made. [34] Because Green has made the stronger showing necessary to prove adverse possession without a gift, she would necessarily also meet the lower threshold for adverse possession based on a gift. [35]