Opinion ID: 2448997
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: There is a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the Cowans' adverse possession claim under former AS 09.10.030.

Text: The Cowans also argue that they met all of the requirements for adverse possession under former AS 09.10.030, [28] and that the only contested question in this case was whether their possession of the disputed land was hostile. The Cowans argue that they raised a genuine issue of material fact whether their possession of the disputed land was hostile because they presented evidence that they treated the disputed land as their own, held themselves out as owners of the land, and protected their right to exclusive use of the land. In response, Sharon Yeisley argues that the Cowans' use of the disputed land could not be hostile under the law because they had a legally protected right (an easement) to use the land, and they made no other use of the land besides that which was legally protected. We find, as the superior court did in its Omnibus Order, that there may be a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of hostility. [29] We have held that [h]ostile possession does not imply that the adverse possessor bore ill will or aggression toward the true owner; it only means that the adverse possessor held the land in such a way that his interest in the property was incompatible with the record owner's interest. [30] If the adverse possessor, without the true owner's permission, `acted toward the land as if he owned it,' then his claim is hostile. [31] The test is an objective one. [32] We have also stated that when possession has begun permissively, it cannot become hostile until the presumption of permissive use is rebutted by proof of a distinct and positive assertion of a right hostile to the owner of the property. [33] Subsequent to the trial court's Omnibus Order, we decided Hansen v. Davis , which provides additional guidance on the concept of hostility in the context of easements. [34] When the trial court issued its Omnibus Order, it found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of hostility but failed to explain the basis of this finding. Because it was error to apply the revised adverse possession statute and the Cowans presented evidence that might support a finding of adverse possession under the former statute, we reverse and remand on the issue of adverse possession. On remand, the trial court should determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding any of the factors of adverse possession under the pre-2003 statute in light of our holding in Hansen. Additionally, the trial court should determine specifically which of the Cowans' activities on the 30-foot right of way, if any, constitute hostile activity and when each of those activities took place. The trial court may either reexamine the facts in the record as it stands, or reopen the record and take new evidence to make these determinations.