Court Opinion

ID: 9722452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:32:32.14874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:35.502229
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority opinion.
There is evidence that a portion of the garage sat on the land now owned by Russell McCarty for longer than 10 years. The court could find from all the evidence and reasonable inferences that the Sheets gained title to the portion the garage occupied by adverse possession.
However, evidence as to actual, visible and exclusive possession of any other land is as follows:
Transcript page 126—
Direct examination of Carl A. Sheets:
“Q. What parts or what territory around the garage have you used in your occupancy of the house? Have you used the land behind and to the side of the garage?
“A. I have mowed it, if you mean that.
“Q. All right.
“A. I have mowed it.
“Q. And how far — how far west have you mowed it, referring to the side of your garage?
“A. I mowed over to the middle to the line. I mowed it, maintained it, protected it, cut dock out of it, thistles, and would rake the leaves off of it for about twenty years.
“Q. All right and is that continuously from the time you took possession of that house up to the present time?
“A. For twenty years, yes.
“Q. During the period of time you’ve owned the property have you paid the taxes as they were assessed against your real estate?
“A. I have.”
Transcript pages 136-137—
Cross-examination of Carl A. Sheets:
“Q. Now as I understand, when you were talking about mowing, cutting thistles, weeds, and pulling all of the bad things around the garage that you said that you had been doing this continuously for more than twenty years, is that correct?
“A. I have done it every year for twenty years.
“Q. Well you said something to the effect as I wrote it down here that you had done this for more than twenty years?
“A. Twenty years.
“Q. All right, did you — were you doing this before you bought the property?
“A. I — no.
“Q. In other words, you didn’t go over there for Mr. Irie or Mrs. Irie or *838whoever you bought it from to pull weeds?
“A. I did not.
“Q. And police that area, is that correct?
“A. I did not.
“Q. Does grass grow between the two garages?
“A. That is right. No, not between the two garages, no.
“Q. Well where did you mow this grass between the garages?
“A. I didn’t mow between garages.
“Q. You didn’t mow between the garages? Well were there any thistles between the garages?
“A. There were thistles between the garages.
“Q. And do you pull these or cut these out?
“A. I cut — yes, I did.
“Q. Well have you ever mowed between the garages?
“A. Not between the garages.
“Q. There just nothing grows in there does it?
“A. Nothing grows there.
“Q. The sun is shut out and it gets a lot of water between the two doesn’t it?
“A. Some water.”
There is not any other evidence or inferences from evidence except as set out above as to actual, visible, exclusive possession. The most that can be drawn from the above testimony is that Sheets did some yard work on the side of the garage and some behind the garage.
There is absolutely no evidence that Sheets did anything to a strip of land 4 feet and 2 inches wide along the whole side of McCarty’s land.
No fence or markings of any kind showed where the boundary line existed. It is a sad day in Indiana when the courts take a man’s land from him on evidence of mowing grass on the side and behind a garage.
I further question whether the requirements of IC 1971, 32-1-20-1 were met. The only evidence as to the payment of taxes appears on transcript page 126:
“Q. During the period of time you’ve owned the property have you paid taxes as they were assessed against your real estate?
“A. I have.”
Such evidence does not meet the requirement of the statute nor the more liberal requirements set out in Echterling et ux. v. Kalvaitis et ux. (1955), 235 Ind. 141, 126 N.E.2d 573.
The right of an individual to own real estate and feel secure in ownership has long been held sacred in this state. The majority opinion of this Court has buried that principle six feet under the ground.
I would reverse and remand for the trial court to correct its judgment.