Opinion ID: 2637219
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Green's Fee Simple Interest in the Trail Is Limited.

Text: Vezey also maintains that there is insufficient evidence to support the superior court's determination that Green established title to the trail. The superior court found that Green's use of the trail began in 1982, when she and her friends and employees widened the trail, cut saplings, and cleared a turnout about one-fourth of the way in. Both Green and one of her associates, John McTaggert, testified that they widened the trail and created the turnaround, and the court noted that Green's and McTaggert's testimony was substantially similar on this issue. Vezey attacks Green's and McTaggert's testimony on credibility grounds, pointing to discrepancies in Green's testimony and the fact that McTaggert took medication for memory problems. But these questions involve the credibility of witnesses and interpretations of their testimony, and the superior court's factual findings based on this testimony do not give rise to a firm and definite conviction that the trial court made a mistake. [37] Vezey also posits that his photographic evidence disproves the superior court's factual findings, and he suggests that this evidence ought to be preferred over the testimony of Green and her witnesses because of its objective nature. However, as the superior court noted, Vezey's photographic expert admitted that some of Green's improvements might not be visible on the aerial photographs, and various witnesses testified to noticeable improvements in the trail. Thus, Vezey's photographic evidence does not undermine the superior court's findings that Green made improvements to the trail. Green stipulated at trial that the path from the telephone road to her cabin was a longstanding public trail. Vezey argues that improvements to a longstanding trail do not constitute adverse possession. Given that the road leading to Green's cabin was a longstanding public trail, Green cannot claim title to the trail through adverse possession. Adverse possession is a doctrine that applies only to private property, and Green cannot make a public asset private through the use of the doctrine. [38] Although Green has fee simple title to the land forty feet to the west of her property, including the trail, her property is subject to an easement where the trail passes through her property. And because the easement similarly runs the entire length of the public trail, Green will have use of the trail pursuant to the trail easement that crosses Vezey's land.