Opinion ID: 1982246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mistaken Boundaries

Text: Claims of adverse possession frequently arise where, as here, an apparent misunderstanding as to the location of a property line is discovered many years after the fact. The more widely accepted view is that an adverse claim, otherwise valid, is not defeated by an initial mistake as to where the claimant's property ends and the neighbor's property actually begins. Id. § 1013(2) at 91-31. In the case of line fences, the majority rule permits adverse possession even under a mistaken belief as to title, where the adverse possessor had an intent to possess up to the claimed line, even though [the claimed line was] not the legal boundary. 5 THOMPSON, supra, § 2548 at 632 (citations omitted). The construction of improvements on the property, such as a wall or a fence, will ordinarily support a finding of adverse possession, for it conveys the message that the occupant intends to possess the land as his own. 7 POWELL, supra, § 1013(2) at 91-44 to 91-47; see also discussion at pp. 10-11 infra. Although fencing is not a prerequisite to a successful claim of adverse possession, it is one of the strongest indications of adversity. Id. § 1014(1) at 91-53 to 91-54. The majority or Connecticut rule, see French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439 (1831), which recognizes adverse possession even where the occupancy began as a result of a mistaken trespass rather than an intentional one, rests on sound reasoning. See NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, supra, § 6.05 at 133-34. In any case in which title by adverse possession is claimed, the initial possession must have come about either by mistake or by deliberate intrusion. To limit the doctrine of adverse possession to the latter type places a premium on intentional wrongdoing, contrary to fundamental justice and policy. 7 POWELL, supra, § 1013(2) at 9-33, citing Woodward v. Faris, 109 Cal. 12, 41 P. 781 (1895); see also Sorensen v. Costa, 32 Cal.2d 453, 196 P.2d 900 (1948); NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, supra, § 6.05 at 133. [7] Courts in the District of Columbia have long subscribed to the majority rule described above, and have held that adverse possession has been established in cases in which the claimant's occupancy resulted from a mistake as to the correct boundary line, especially where the claimant has constructed improvements on the disputed property. In Neale v. Lee, 19 D.C. (8 Mackey) 5 (1890), the wall of the plaintiff's house was erected eight inches inside the defendant's lot. The problem was not discovered until many years later. Confronting the question whether the doctrine of adverse possession applies to a case of confused boundaries, the court held that even though a mistake was made as to the true line at the time when the house was constructed, physical occupancy of the defendant's land by the wall for the statutory period created title in the plaintiff by adverse possession. The court held that the erection of permanent improvements bespeaks adversity, and that possession of all that lay within this assumed line was necessarily hostile to the owner of the adjoining lot. The latter was at once put to his action and the Statute of Limitations began to run. Id. at 21. In Brumbaugh v. Gompers, 50 App.D.C. 130, 269 F. 472 (1920), the record owner had built a fence inside his property line. Two walls of the adverse claimant's building protruded over the record owner's property. These conditions existed for thirty years, well in excess of the statutory limitation period. The court held that adverse possession had been established: The evidence is uncontradicted that for a period of more than 30 years the eastern boundary of lot 13 [that of the adverse claimant] was not the line as surveyed for the sale to appellees, but the line claimed by appellants and formed by clearly defined boundaries. In our view, no clearer case of adverse possession could be made. Id. at 132, 269 F. at 474. In Gary v. Dane, supra , another case involving a mistake over the location of a boundary line, the court reiterated the principles of Neale v. Lee and Brumbaugh v. Gompers , citing both cases by name. The court explained, in pertinent part, that our jurisdiction recognizes the doctrine that a claim of adverse possession may be rooted in ignorance or mistake.       It suffices if there was an intent to possess the disputed area, even if this intent was grounded on ignorance or mistaken notions. 133 U.S.App.D.C. at 400 & n. 8, 411 F.2d at 714 & n. 8. [8]