Opinion ID: 4560777
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: When it has been usually cultivated or

Text: improved. “‘To satisfy the elements for adverse possession, the acts on which the claimant relies must be actual, visible, continuous, notorious, distinct, and hostile, and of such character to unmistakably indicate an assertion of claim of exclusive ownership by the occupant.’ Gruebele v. Geringer, 2002 ND 38, ¶ 7, 640 N.W.2d 454; see also Benson v. Feland Bros. Props., 2018 ND 29, ¶ 15, 906 N.W.2d 98; Benson v. Taralseth, 382 N.W.2d 649, 653 (N.D. 1986); Torgerson v. Rose, 339 N.W.2d 79, 84 (N.D. 1983); Woodland v. Woodland, 147 N.W.2d 590, 597 (N.D. 1966). ‘Actual knowledge of the adverse possession is not necessary if there is a course of conduct directly hostile and these acts of hostility are “unmistakably clear.’’’ Benson, 382 N.W.2d at 653. The person claiming property by adverse possession has the burden to prove the claim by clear and convincing evidence, and ‘every reasonable intendment will be made in favor of the true owner.’ Gruebele, at ¶ 8. ‘All of the elements must be satisfied, and if any elements are not satisfied the possession will not confer title.’ Moody [v. Sundley], 2015 ND 204, ¶ 11, 868 N.W.2d 491. Whether an 3 adverse possession has occurred presents a question of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Moody, at ¶ 11; Gruebele, at ¶ 6.” [¶8] The Magrums claim they acquired ownership of the disputed property by adverse possession because they and their predecessors hayed the land annually for more than twenty years. [¶9] The district court found the annual cutting of hay, “which occurred once annually the years it occurred, was not cultivation, continuous, and exclusive of Gimbel’s right of title . . . .” The court also found the haying was not adverse to Gimbel. The court’s findings are supported by the evidence. Gimbel testified he always allowed others to hay the disputed property for free because it was uneconomical to hay and he did not want the hay. In addition, it is undisputed that the property is raw pasture land existing in its natural state. Because the evidence supports the district court’s findings concerning a lack of adversity and a lack of cultivation, the court’s determination that the Magrums did not establish adverse possession is not clearly erroneous.