Opinion ID: 2364766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the district court err in ruling against the Bellises on their claim of adverse possession?

Text: [¶ 11] In 1987, the Bellises purchased from the Colemans a portion of the Colemans' ranch, including the land in Section 4 shown on the above map. Subsequent use by the Bellises of lands retained by the Colemans in Sections 3 and 10 to the east of Section 4 apparently led Mr. Bellis and Mr. Coleman to conclude in 1997 that there was some question as to the boundary between their respective properties in that area. Although Mr. Bellis does not challenge the correctness of the 1987 deed, he contends that the fence, rather than the section line, was always meant to be the eastern boundary of his property. His legal argument at trial was that the Bellises adversely possessed the disputed area. [¶ 12] When Mr. Bellis and Mr. Coleman met in 1997 to discuss the Colemans' planned land sale, the two men discussed the Bellises' potential adverse possession claim. The Bellises did not pursue that claim, for two reasons. First, the ten-year statutory period had not passed, meaning the claim had not ripened. And second, Mr. Coleman did not want to pay to survey the fence line for the purpose of establishing the western boundary of the property he could sell. Consequently, the Bellises and the Colemans resolved the difficulty with an agreement: the Bellises would pay $18,000 to extend the eastern border of their land to the diagonal line in Section 3 discussed above. This transaction was accomplished by payment of the money and execution and delivery of the deed. [¶ 13] While nobody in this case has argued that the 1997 deed is ambiguous, parol evidence was admitted to explain its purpose. That evidence clearly shows that the intention of both the Bellises and the Colemans was to establish a boundary between their properties that would allow the Colemans to sell the lands east of the boundary. Mr. Bellis, himself, repeatedly testified that such was their purpose. Given that purpose, and given the exchange of money for a warranty deed specifically identifying a property boundary lying entirely west of the fence all of which took place before the period required to establish adverse possessionit simply cannot be said that the evidence can support the Bellises' position that they retained a claim to any property east of the deed's boundary line. Consequently, any adverse possession claim the Bellises could now assert would have had to begin after they accepted the 1997 deed. Inasmuch as the Kerseys brought their civil action in 2005, and the Bellises sued the other appellants in 2006, it is clear that the ten-year adverse possession period has not been proven. The ruling of the district court is affirmed on that ground. [4]