Court Opinion

ID: 9621655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:03:10.329825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:27.055985
License: Public Domain

Opinion of the Court by
Justice ABRAMSON.
In November 2002, the second generation descendants of I.E. Winstead — Cleveland Winstead, James Dement, Curtis Dement, Pat Vandiver, Emma Lou Yates, Margaret Sue Jones, George Flener, Jerry Flener, and Shirley Stills, together with Shirley’s husband Roy E. Stills (“Petitioners”) — petitioned the Hopkins Circuit Court to quiet their title to an area of wild, formerly strip-mined land adjacent to and east of the 289-acre farm they had acquired through their parents from their grandfather. Petitioners based their claim on adverse possession. A Hopkins County jury found in Petitioners’ favor, but the Hopkins Circuit Court, by order entered February 28, 2006, granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) to the owners of record — Lynda L. McAfee; David M. and Linda L. Ramsey, husband and wife; and Darrel H. and Wanda June Moore, also husband and wife (“Respondents”). Petitioners appealed, and the Court of Appeals, by opinion rendered September 7, 2007, reversed the trial court’s JNOV and reinstated the jury’s verdict. This Court then granted Respondents’ motion for discretionary review to consider whether Petitioners’ use of the disputed land for recreational purposes was sufficient to establish their adverse possession of it, and in particular whether the Recreational Use Statute, KRS 411.190, precluded Petitioners’ claim. We also agreed to consider whether Petitioners had sufficiently defined and marked the boundary of their claim for the purposes of adverse possession. Because we agree with Respondents that Petitioners’ recreational use was not adequate to establish the adverse possession of another’s land under either the common law or KRS 411.190(8) and that Petitioners failed to prove the “well-defined boundary” element of their claim, we reverse the opinion of the Court of Appeals and thereby reinstate the trial court’s JNOV.

RELEVANT FACTS

Although the parties vigorously dispute their legal consequences, the facts in this case are largely undisputed. The land at issue is situated about three miles south of Madisonville and lies between what was and apparently still is known as the I.E. Winstead Farm to the west, and what, until recently, was known as the Walter J. Ruby Blue Valley Farm to the east.1 I.E. Winstead acquired his roughly 239-acre farm in 1936, and until his death in 1972 he farmed a portion of it; left some of it, including much of its eastern side, as wooded spoil land; and operated a small coal mine. The farm passed by deed and inheritance to the four children of I.E. Winstead’s first marriage, and from them by deed and inheritance to the present Petitioners.
The Blue Valley Farm comprises several tracts totaling approximately 354 acres. A small acreage is in cultivation, but most of the farm remains unimproved, wooded spoil land. Respondents purchased the Blue Valley Farm from Walter Ruby in 1999, and in the course of having their new *75property surveyed, they discovered that between their farm and the Winstead Farm lay five relatively small tracts, three owned by Bank One, the successor to the Kentucky Bank and Trust Company of Madisonville, and two owned by the Ruby Construction Company of Smyrna, Georgia (no relation to Walter Ruby). In 2001 Respondents acquired those intervening five tracts, totaling about sixty-five acres, by quitclaim deeds.
In the meantime, Respondents and Petitioners had come into conflict over the boundary between their two holdings. In late 1999 or early 2000, Respondents had confronted a guest of Petitioners trespassing, they believed, on the western portion of the Blue Valley Farm, and again in 1999 Petitioners had sold timber from one or more of the intervening tracts to a lumber company, Snow Enterprises, LLC. Respondents’ objection to that sale led both to Respondents’ discovery and acquisition of the intervening tracts and to this action by Petitioners to quiet title to the disputed area between the two farms.
The disputed area comprises approximately 125 acres, the sixty-five intervening acres and another sixty acres from the westernmost traets of the Blue Valley Farm. Although Petitioners claim, and sought to prove at trial, that they adversely possessed this entire 125-acre area, they unilaterally agreed to limit the Blue Valley Farm land actually awarded to them to the approximately twenty-five acres in line with the sixty-five acres of intervening traets, making their total award in the judgment which the Court of Appeals reinstated approximately ninety acres.
While the actual eastern boundary of the Winstead Farm lies along the western edge of the intervening tracts and along the eastern edge of their easternmost cleared field, Petitioners offered testimony to the effect that their family had long — at least since the 1960s — believed that the Winstead Farm extended eastwardly to a meandering line beginning at a large boulder in the south, about thirty yards north of the Blue Valley Road, and running roughly northeast from there between two small lakes formed from strip mining pits to the intersection of three trails and then along a spoil ridgeline to the bed of an old coal mining rail spur at a point where there once stood a gum tree and where one of the old concrete railroad right-of-way markers bears the remnants of three barbwire fences. Petitioners introduced an aerial photograph of the area on which some of these landmarks are visible, they introduced photographs of the boulder, a video recording depicting the entire eastern line, and testimony by a surveyor to the effect that he had been shown some of the line and that landmarks such as those mentioned could be used to provide a metes and bounds description of the line.
Petitioners also introduced evidence that the purported eastern boundary line had been marked as such. Roy Stills, the husband of Shirley Stills, one of I.E. Win-stead’s granddaughters, testified that early in his marriage to Shirley, her father and grandfather had taken him hunting on the disputed tract and had pointed out to him the purported boundary line described above. Later, in about 1982, the surviving children and grandchildren of I.E. Win-stead had informally made Stills the overseer of the farm, and beginning then, he testified, and continuing until about 2000, when the dispute arose with Respondents, he had regularly marked and remarked that eastern boundary by tying engineering tape to trees that grew along it and by posting “no trespassing” signs on some of the same trees. Several other friends and hunting acquaintances of Stills, and other Winstead family members, also testified that Stills had pointed out to them the boundary line and that they had observed *76or even assisted in its flagging and posting.
In addition to his testimony concerning the location and marking of what Petitioners claimed was the Winstead Farm’s eastern boundary, Stills testified that for as long as he had been connected with the Winstead family, from well before 1982, he and other family members had regularly used the disputed tract for hunting, fishing, hiking, and riding four-wheelers. He described the construction of deer and turkey blinds, the occasional clearing of undergrowth to facilitate shooting, and the expulsion of uninvited hunters from the property. Again, several other witnesses confirmed that Petitioners, a few of them at least and principally Stills and his guests, had regularly used the disputed land in that manner.
On the basis of that testimony and the other evidence summarized above, the jury found that Petitioners “held adverse possession of the real estate in question.” The trial court, however, as noted, granted Respondents’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict and by order entered February 28, 2006, dismissed Petitioners’ suit. The court explained that in its judgment Petitioners had failed to prove with sufficient clarity that they had marked any boundary lines except the purported eastern one. It also noted that “[i]n any event, the mere marking of a boundary without reducing to actual possession the land in question will not amount to an adverse holding.”
The Court of Appeals reversed. In its opinion, testimony by a couple of witnesses who had been occasional hunting guests to the effect that they had helped Stills flag and post the eastern boundary line and that the flagging had continued on the farm’s other boundary lines as well, was sufficient to satisfy Petitioners’ burden of proving that the disputed tract had well-defined north and south boundaries, in addition to the much-discussed eastern boundary. The trial court’s concern that Petitioners had not reduced the disputed area to actual possession was addressed in the Court of Appeals’ opinion in terms of KRS 411.190(8), which, in pertinent part, provides that the use of land “solely for recreational purposes,” will not support a claim of adverse possession. Noting that this subsection of KRS 411.190 did not go into effect until July 15, 2002, well after Petitioners’ claim had allegedly ripened, the Court of Appeals ruled that it did not apply retroactively to Petitioners’ claim. Otherwise, the Court indicated that because Petitioners’ use of the land was consistent with its character, that use sufficed to establish that Petitioners had reduced the disputed area to actual possession.
Respondents have now brought both of the trial court’s concerns to this Court. They insist that the boundary-marking testimony relied upon by the Court of Appeals does not locate with sufficient definiteness the north and south boundaries of the land Petitioners claim. They also insist, again relying on KRS 411.190, that the trial court was correct when it implied that Petitioners’ recreational use of the disputed property did not reduce it to actual possession. Convinced that the trial court was indeed correct with respect to Petitioners’ recreational use of the property being insufficient to establish actual possession, we begin our discussion with that issue. We will then more briefly consider the boundary-line issue.

ANALYSIS

Adverse Possession Does Not Arise Unless The Claimant “Actually” Possesses The Disputed Property.
I. Sporadic, Insubstantial Use of Property Did Not Amount To “Actual” Possession at Common Law.
We review an order granting JNOV for clear error. “That is to say, we *77must review all the evidence presented to the jury and must uphold the trial court’s decision if after all the evidence is construed most favorably to the verdict winner, a finding in his favor would not be made by a reasonable [person].” Moore v. Environmental Construction Corporation, 147 S.W.3d 13, 16 (Ky.2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the trial court that the petitioners’ evidence did not permit a reasonable finding of adverse possession, and thus we must uphold the trial court’s JNOV.
The doctrine of adverse possession is an amalgam of statutory and common law. Under KRS 413.010, “an action for the recovery of real property may be brought only within fifteen (15) years after the right to institute it first accrued to the plaintiff, or to the person through whom he claims.” This statutory limitations period incorporates what the common law has long deemed necessary for the right of recovery to accrue. Our predecessor Court described the elements that would start the running of the limitations period as follows:
To start the running of the statute of limitations, the disseizor must have an actual possession; it must-be an open, notorious, and visible possession; it must be a selfish or exclusive possession, that is the disseizor must hold possession for himself to the exclusion of the true owner, and all others; it must be a hostile possession, not only as against the true owner but as against the world; it must be a definite possession, that is its confines must be marked by an inclosure or other plainly visible indications; the disseizor must fly his flag, and indicate the lines of his dominion, the extent of his possession must be evident; and it must be a possession under a claim by the disseizor of ownership in himself, so notorious as to amount to a constructive notice of its adverseness. When all these things coexist, the running of the statute starts. To keep it running the disseizor must in this commonwealth maintain that status in full vigor in all its elements for every hour of every day for 15 years....
Flinn v. Blakeman, 254 Ky. 416, 71 S.W.2d 961, 969 (1934) (citations omitted).
In Young v. Pace, 145 Ky. 405, 406, 140 S.W. 555 (1911), another case from early in the last century, our predecessor Court described the elements of an adverse pos-sessory holding this way:
In order to support a title by adverse holding, three facts must be established: First, the possession must have been continuous, actual, open, notorious and peaceable for at least fifteen years; second, the exterior boundary lines of the land so claimed must be well defined, i.e., either actually enclosed or so marked that the land is susceptible of being identified by its description; and third, the possession must have been of such a character and extent as to exclude the idea that the right to possession was in anyone else.
Id. at 406, 555, 140 S.W. 555. The third element is now usually subsumed by the requirement that the possession be “actual.”
More recently, we identified “five elements, all of which must be satisfied, before adverse possession will bar record title: 1) possession must be hostile and under a claim of right, 2) it must be actual, 3) it must be exclusive, 4) it must be continuous, and 5) it must be open and notorious.” Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc. v. Royal Crown Bottling Company, Inc., 824 S.W.2d 878, 880 (Ky.1992) (citing Tartar v. Tucker, 280 S.W.2d 150, 152 (Ky.1955)). These common law elements of adverse possession must all be *78maintained for the statutory period of fifteen years, and it is the claimant’s burden to prove them by clear and convincing evidence. Commonwealth Department of Parks v. Stephens, 407 S.W.2d 711 (Ky.1966); Flinn v. Blakeman, supra.
As these citations indicate, our law has long provided that an adverse possession will not arise unless the claimant has reduced his claim to an “actual” possession, a possession, in other words, evidenced by such use and occupation of the claimed property as to establish a clear dominion over it. It is not enough, as our predecessor Court explained in Flinn, that one merely stretch one’s boundary to include property beyond one’s deed. One may not, while living on one’s rightful property
“acquire title through such a stretching operation to other property about which he might mark a line. A disseizor to acquire title by adverse possession must have possession of the property he hopes to acquire. He is not in possession of it, if while he is living on another tract, he simply mentally extends his claim over it.”
71 S.W.2d at 972. Accordingly, it has long been held that “[t]he surveying and marking of a boundary, the payment of taxes, and occasional entries for the purpose of cutting timber are not sufficient to constitute adverse possession.” Flinn, supra at 972 (citing Griffith Lumber Company v. Kirk, 228 Ky. 310, 14 S.W.2d 1075 (1929)) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Fields v. Wells, 224 Ky. 620, 622, 6 S.W.2d 1110, 1111 (1928). (“[A]ppellees could not by going beyond the boundaries of these surveys [their rightful holdings] and marking another boundary, however well they may have marked it, obtain title of the land to this marked line. A naked claim of ownership, however long persisted in, is not sufficient.”) Regardless of how well Petitioners may have flagged and posted the eastern and other boundary lines of the disputed property, therefore, that marking did not commence the running of the limitations period unless and until it was accompanied by a use of the property clearly indicative of Petitioners’ intent to exert dominion over it to the exclusion of the rightful owner.
Petitioners maintain that their long use of the disputed area for hunting and fishing and other recreational purposes as well as their 1999 sale of timber were sufficient acts of dominion to constitute “actual” possession for adverse possession purposes. We disagree. Our law is replete with cases holding that the removal of timber from wild lands is not sufficient to establish actual possession of the land. See, e.g., Noland v. Wise, 259 S.W.2d 46 (Ky.1953); Marsee v. Colson, 307 Ky. 328, 210 S.W.2d 952 (1948); and Flinn, supra. Similarly, our predecessor Court found such uses as the masting of hogs, the ranging of cattle, the conducting of a sugar camp; the operation of a water mill; the cutting of bushes and hay; the occasional sowing of grass, and the intermittent holding of church services and meetings insufficient to establish the actual possession of another’s land. Flinn, supra at 972 (collecting cases); Kentucky Women’s Christian Temperance Union v. Thomas, 412 S.W.2d 869 (Ky.1967) (cutting hay, digging pond, growing crop and similar activities insufficient); Miller v. Cumberland Petroleum Co., 269 Ky. 525, 108 S.W.2d 514 (1937) (church’s members hitching of horses, parking of automobiles and picnics insufficient). Many of our sister states are in accord as to the insufficiency of incidental uses. Estate of Welliver v. Alberts, 278 Ill.App.3d 1028, 215 Ill.Dec. 580, 663 N.E.2d 1094 (1996) (maintenance of hiking and motorcycle trails insufficient); Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom, 799 *79P.2d 304 (Alaska 1990) (maintenance of trails); Hardt v. Eskam, 218 Neb. 81, 352 N.W.2d 583 (1984) (seasonal hunting and cattle grazing); Pierz v. Gorski, 88 Wis.2d 131, 276 N.W.2d 352 (Wis.App.1979) (establishing worm bed, spraying for poison ivy, planting clover and trees); Rowland v. McLain, 86 Ga.App. 140, 70 S.E.2d 918, 920 (1952) (“the roaming of cattle and hogs, the posting of signs forbidding trespassing, driving away hunters from time to time”).
The Virginia courts, whose early exposition of the common law provided the starting point for our own common law tradition, Ky. Const. § 233, have long held that “wild and uncultivated land cannot be made the subject of adverse possession while it remains completely in a state of nature; a change in its condition to some extent is essential.” Calhoun v. Woods, 246 Va. 41, 431 S.E.2d 285, 287 (1993) (citing Craig-Giles Iron Co. v. Wickline, 126 Va. 223, 101 S.E. 225, 229 (1919)). This rule is consistent with our own requirement that adverse possession be evidenced by substantial activity on the land; sporadic uses, such as those indicated above, do not suffice. Kentucky Women’s Christian Temperance Union v. Thomas, supra; Phillips v. Akers, 103 S.W.3d 705 (Ky.App.2002). The rule is also consistent with the presumption that the sporadic use of wild lands is permissive. Bradley v. City of Harrodsburg, 277 Ky. 254, 126 S.W.2d 141 (1939).
Petitioners’ use of the disputed property for hunting, fishing, and other recreation and their one-time removal of timber are indistinguishable from these other uses which have been held not to establish “actual” possession. Their use has in no way altered the condition of the property. It remains today the wild, unimproved land it has long been. Indeed, with the possible exception of unusual circumstances not present here, the mere recreational use of property has as its aim the enjoyment of the land as it naturally is, and thus by its nature, recreational use will be sporadic and insubstantial. Under our law, such use has never sufficed to establish an adverse possession.
Petitioners point out that the acts necessary to reduce property to actual possession will depend to some extent on the character of the property, its physical nature, and the use to which it has been put. Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., 824 S.W.2d at 880 (citing Ely v. Fuson, 297 Ky. 325, 180 S.W.2d 90 (1944)); Culton v. Simpson, 265 Ky. 343, 96 S.W.2d 856 (1936). As the discussion above makes clear, however, that does not mean that wild and uncultivated lands may be re duced to actual possession by any use whatsoever. The use must still be so substantial as to put the owner on notice that his or her dominion over the land is being usurped. Recreational uses, which do not alter the character of the land and so leave the owner’s potential uses undisturbed, do not suffice. Otherwise, if merely posting the land and hiking or hunting on it were enough to establish adverse possession, the law would in effect be putting the trespasser on the same footing with the rightful owner of record. Craig-Giles Iron Co. v. Wickline, 126 Va. 223, 101 S.E. 225, 229 (1919). (“It is vain for him [the would-be adverse possessor] to say that he has had all the possession of which the property was then susceptible; for that would lead to a constructive possession, which is only attributable to the rightful owner.”) As the cases we have discussed demonstrate, that was not the law in Kentucky even when settlement and development of the state’s vast wild lands was a principal public concern. Even less so is it the law now, when conservation of wild lands has assumed an important place in *80our land-use strategy. Brian Gardiner, “Squatters’ Rights and Adverse Possession: A Search for Equitable Application of Property Laws,” 8 Ind. Int’l & Comp. L.Rev. 119 (1997); John G. Sprankling, “An Environmental Critique of Adverse Possession,” 79 Cornell L.Rev. 816 (1994). Mere recreational use, in sum, does not amount to “actual” possession for adverse possession purposes, and therefore such use does not set running the KRS 413.010 limitations period.
II. KRS 411.190(8) Codifies And Clarifies Judicial Precedent To The Effect That Recreational Use Does Not Amount To “Actual” Possession.
This brings us to the Recreational Use Statute, KRS 411.190. While we have noted that Petitioners’ recreational use of the property in question would not have sufficed as “actual” possession at common law, Respondents have argued for the same conclusion under the clear dictates of KRS 411.190(8). We agree that the Recreational Use Statute applies. Although the result in this case is the same under either common law or KRS 411.190(8), the Court of Appeals erred in concluding the statute did not apply.
As noted above, in 2002 the General Assembly enacted House Bill 387, which in pertinent part amended the Recreational Use Statute by adding the following provision: “No action for the recovery of real property, including establishment of prescriptive easement, right-of-way, or adverse possession, may be brought by any person whose claim is based on use solely for recreational purposes.” KRS 411.190(8). The General Assembly defined “recreational purpose” in KRS 411.190(l)(c) as follows:
(1) As used in this section:
(c) “Recreational purpose” includes, but is not limited to, any of the following, or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, pleasure driving, nature study, water-skiing, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites; and
Respondents maintain that this new provision precludes Petitioners’ claim, which they did not bring until November 1, 2002, about three-and-a-half months after the new provision took effect. Petitioners counter, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that KRS 411.190(8) was not intended to apply retroactively to claims, such as Petitioners’, which arose prior to the effective date of the new provision. We agree with Respondents, however, that KRS 411.190(8) does operate retroactively and thus should have been applied to Petitioners’ claim.
As Petitioners and the Court of Appeals correctly observe, our Courts indulge a strong presumption, embodied in KRS 446.080, against the retroactive application of substantive changes to the law. In pertinent part, that statute provides that “[n]o statute shall be construed to be retroactive, unless expressly so declared.” KRS 446.080(3). In Commonwealth Department of Agriculture v. Vinson, 30 S.W.3d 162 (Ky.2000), we explained that under this provision substantive amendments to the law, ie., “Amendments which change and redefine the out-of-court rights, obligations and duties of persons in their transactions with others ... come within the rule that statutory amendments cannot be applied retroactively to events which occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment.” Id. at 168. On the other hand, however, statutory amendments that do not affect substantive rights, *81amendments often referred to as “remedial,” “do not come within the rule prohibiting retroactive application.” Id. at 169 (citing Peabody Coal Co. v. Gossett, 819 S.W.2d 38 (Ky.1991)).
Among the “remedial” enactments are statutory amendments that clarify existing law or that codify judicial precedent. Because such amendments do not impair rights a party possessed when he or she acted or give past conduct or transactions new substantive legal consequences, they do not operate retroactively and thus do not come within the rule against retroactive legislation. Blake v. Carbone, 489 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir.2007); National Mining Association v. Department of Labor, 292 F.3d 849 (D.C.Cir.2002); Western Security Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 232, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 933 P.2d 507 (1997).
As discussed above, judicial precedent in the Commonwealth has long provided that the mere incidental use of another’s property will not give rise to an adverse possession. Although we have no case law saying so expressly, recreational use, such as that Petitioners have made of the disputed property in this case, is an incidental use of land and it is indistinguishable from other specific uses we have held to be incidental. Thus under preexisting common law Petitioners’ claim would have failed. KRS 411.190(8) codifies a portion of this preexisting law and clarifies it by addressing recreational use expressly, but it does not alter the law in any substantive way. KRS 411.190(8), therefore, does not implicate the rule against retroactive legislation, and the Court of Appeals erred by failing to apply KRS 411.190(8) to this case.
KRS 411.190(8) applies, of course, only to adverse possession claims brought “solely” on the basis of recreational use. Petitioners hope to escape its application by noting that in addition to their recreational use of the property, their claim is based on their 1999 timber sale. Even if the timber sale, as a non-recreational use, lies outside the scope of the Recreational Use Statute, the statute would nonetheless apply to Petitioners’ solely-recreational-use claim prior to 1999 and thus would leave them with a claim that falls far short of the requirement that the adverse possession continue for fifteen years. The timber sale, in sum, does not save Petitioners’ claim under KRS 411.190(8) any more than it would have done under the common law. The trial court’s JNOV correctly so held.
III. Petitioners Failed To Prove A Well-Defined And Marked Boundary For The Entire Limitations Period.
Respondents also contend that the Court of Appeals erred by deeming Petitioners’ boundary-line proof sufficient. As noted above, proof, by clear and convincing evidence, of a well-defined boundary is an essential element of an adverse possession claim. The claimed land, our predecessor Court held nearly a century ago, must be “either actually enclosed or so marked that the land is susceptible of being identified by its description.” Young v. Pace, 140 S.W. at 555. Whether this standard retains its vitality in an age when global positioning systems make precise boundary descriptions a relatively simple matter is an interesting question. Jeffrey Evans Stake, “The Uneasy Case For Adverse Possession,” 89 Geo. L.J. 2419 (2001). It is a question best left to the General Assembly, however, and in any event having decided on other grounds that Petitioners’ claim must be dismissed as a matter of law, we need not address it here.
*82Even under the old standard, we agree with the trial court that Petitioners’ boundary-line proof was insufficient. As noted at the outset of our analysis, we will uphold an order granting JNOV “if after all the evidence is construed most favorably to the verdict winner, a finding in his favor would not be made by a reasonable [person].” Moore v. Environmental Construction Corporation, 147 S.W.3d 13, 16 (Ky.2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, as the trial court noted in its order granting judgment NOV, Petitioners’ proof was directed exclusively to establishing the location of their purported eastern boundary line and the fact that that line had been continuously marked and posted since about 1982. The western boundary of the disputed area, moreover, coincided with the eastern boundary of the Winstead Farm, and that line, although not proven by Petitioners, was introduced by Respondents. Petitioners have not referred us, however, to any testimony purporting to locate the northern and southern boundaries of the disputed area. They rely instead on a couple of their exhibits, which did purport to show the northern and southern lines. During his testimony, Roy Stills drew an outline of the disputed area on a large aerial photograph of the two farms, including northern and southern boundaries. Petitioners also introduced a smaller aerial photograph of the area on which the quitclaimed intervening tracts were marked in conjunction with the rest of the disputed area. That exhibit, too, indicated northern and southern boundaries. On both exhibits the southern boundary appears to extend in a straight line from the southeastern corner of the Winstead Farm to the large stone at the southeastern corner of the disputed area. The exhibits thus render that boundary susceptible to an identifying description. The northern boundaries pictured on the two exhibits do not coincide, however. On the Stills exhibit, the northern boundary appears to run in a straight line from the northeast corner of the Winstead Farm to the gum tree/right-of-way marker at the northeast corner of the disputed area. On the other exhibit, however, the northern boundary is shown as following the old rail bed a bit north of the Stills line. Without clarifying testimony, therefore, and we have been referred to none, these exhibits are ambiguous and do not permit an identifying description of the northern boundary. Were Petitioners attempting to claim to that boundary, the trial court’s determination that their proof was insufficient would clearly be correct.
As noted at the outset, however, this case is unusual in that Petitioners have reduced the land they hope to be awarded to an area inside the area they claim to have adversely possessed. Their tendered judgment includes a full metes and bounds description of this smaller area, and it appears that the northern boundary of that area is within both of the boundaries pictured on the trial exhibits. In these circumstances it may be wondered whether an accurate description of the outer boundary is necessary or whether instead proof that the outer boundary was clearly marked for the entire limitations period should suffice.
Even assuming that proof of marking would suffice, however, we are not convinced that the trial court clearly erred when it ruled that Petitioners’ proof came up short. Although, as the Court of Appeals noted, a couple of Stills’s hunting acquaintances commented during their testimony that they had during a few of the years in question helped Stills flag and post not only the eastern boundary but “the entire farm,” no rational juror could deem that scant testimony clear and convincing evidence that the northern and *83southern boundaries had been clearly marked for the entire limitations period. We have not been referred to any other evidence tending to establish that the northern and southern boundaries' were continuously marked for fifteen years, and thus, on this ground too, the trial court’s JNOV was proper.

CONCLUSION

In sum, Kentucky law has long rejected adverse possession claims based on the sporadic or insubstantial use of another’s property. With KRS 411.190(8), the General Assembly has codified a portion of that law by expressly providing that adverse possession is not established by recreational use alone. Because that statute clarifies existing law but does not alter it, its application to this case was not barred by the rule against retroactive legislation, and under the statute Petitioners’ claim fails as a matter of law. Their claim also fails as a matter of fact, inasmuch as they did not meet their burden of proving that the entire boundary of their claim was clearly defined and marked throughout the fifteen-year limitations period. For these reasons the trial court did not err when it granted Respondents’ motion for judgment NOV. Accordingly, we reverse the September 7, 2007 Opinion of the Court of Appeals and hereby reinstate the February 28, 2006 Judgment of the Hopkins Circuit Court.
MINTON, C.J.; CUNNINGHAM, NOBLE, and SCHRODER, JJ., concur.
SCOTT, J., dissents by separate opinion in which VENTERS, J., joins.

. One witness referred to it as the Blue Ridge Farm. "Blue Valley" however is the name that occurs more often in the record.