Court Opinion

ID: 9721085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:48:11.709049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:23.346830
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I agree with the court that the possession exception under the Marketable Title Act (MTA), Minn.Stat. § 541.023 (2008), if applied to an easement, requires no more than proof of use of the easement sufficient to put a prudent person on notice, giving due regard to the nature of the easement. I also agree with the court that the burden to prove use of the easement should fall upon those claiming possession. I have reservations about the court’s holding that the possession exception requires proof of continuous possession from the deadline for filing the notice of interest required by the MTA, but find it unnecessary to address that question because I would resolve this case on other grounds.
Under the court’s holding, most of these appellants never had any interest in the easement purportedly conveyed by their respective deeds, their predecessors in title being deemed to have abandoned the easement sometime before 1950. But it is clear that at least some of the appellants were using the easement when this action was filed. By its terms, the MTA cannot “bar the rights of any person, partnership, or corporation in possession of real estate.” Minn.Stat. § 541.023, subd. 6. Adverse possession of an easement requires proof of use of the easement for a period of only 15 years. See Minn.Stat. § 541.02 (2008). If subdivision 6 of the MTA is to have any *77meaning, then a party who cannot prove continuous use of the easement for the period required under the MTA as interpreted by our court must nevertheless be afforded the opportunity to establish ownership of the easement by adverse possession. If we simply affirm the court of appeals, the Torrens certifícate will issue without notice of the easement and, under Minn.Stat. § 508.25 (2008), appellants will be forever barred from claiming an easement over the property. On remand, I would allow each of the appellants the opportunity to prove adverse possession of the easement.