Court Opinion

ID: 9534998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:44:27.662414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:09.118181
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority opinion and the trial court erred in construing IC 1971, 32-1-20-1 as not applying to situations involving boundary line adverse possession actions. They arrive at this position by citing Echterling v. Kalvaitis, 235 Ind. 141, 126 N.E.2d 573. In Echterling the Court determined that since tax duplicates are sketchy and inaccurate that trial court did not err in finding compliance with IC 1971, 32-1-20-1. However, in the case before us not only were the tax duplicates placed in evidence but oral testimony from the township assessor established that the appellants had paid taxes on the disputed land and that the appellees had not.
In Kline v. Kramer, Ind.App., 386 N.E.2d 982 only tax duplicates established the payment of taxes as in Echterling.
I would reverse the judgment of the trial court.