Court Opinion

ID: 9523186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:36:52.428126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:40.070561
License: Public Domain

FRIEDLANDER, Judge,
concurring in result.
I agree with the majority that the Ming-ers may not acquire title to the parcel in question through the doctrine of adverse possession, and therefore that judgment in their favor must be reversed. I do not subscribe, however, to the rationale adopted by my colleagues in reaching that result. I write separately to explain my divergent view.
First and foremost, I cannot agree with the majority's conclusion that E'chterling is to be applied "only in extremely limited circumstances and not in all cases involving fences and boundary disputes in which the adverse claimant has paid taxes on the adjoining property." Slip op. at 8. Whether or not we agree with Echterling, it represents a pronouncement of our supreme court and we are bound to following it as written. My colleagues acknowledge as much, but then effect what I consider to be a narrowing of its seope and applicability. Inasmuch as I believe that to be beyond our province, I cannot agree with it, nor indeed with any of the majority's analysis and conclusions relative to Echterling.
That said, I agree that the Mingers do not have a valid claim to the disputed land under the theory of adverse possession. In order to gain title by adverse possession, a claimant must demonstrate that all of the elements of such a claim are present. Snowball Corp. v. Pope, 580 N.E.2d 738 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). As the majority notes, the appellate materials reflect that the Mingers knew the disputed parcel was not part of their deeded land. Thus, they knew that they did not have a valid claim of ownership. Such a claim is an essential *293element of adverse possession. See Davis v. Sponhauer, 574 N.E.2d 292, 298 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) ("the claim of ownership must be based on some ground justifying the adverse claimant's belief that he is the owner"), trans. dismissed. Because the Mingers knew from the beginning that the disputed parcel was not deeded to them, they can assert no basis upon which to premise a valid claim of ownership. Upon that rationale alone, I agree that the Ming-ers may not attain fee simple title to the parcel through adverse possession.