Court Opinion

ID: 9530452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:56.641825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:07.084756
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Sutton
specially concurring:
I concur in the result of the majority opinion. I cannot concur fully in how it arrived at its conclusion. I believe it should have discussed and disposed of the stipulated fact of plaintiffs’ then possession of the land in dispute. It seems incongruous to me to start on that premise and then without explanation rest the decision on (1) authorities where there was no possession and (2) on no color of title. So based the result would clearly be erroneous.
The opinion in this regard states: “ * * * the parties entered into a stipulation in writing wherein it was agreed * * * ‘that when this action was commenced the plaintiff had started construction on such disputed strip by installation of concrete footings, I beams, and a septic tank, * * * ’.”
It further states that “He (plaintiff) offered no testimony with reference to possession or any other matter and rested his case relying upon the deeds, abstracts of title, pictures, plats and stipulation as outlined above.” (Emphasis supplied.)
*125No comment is made of the fact that the pictures show that the disputed land is a narrow passageway between two existing buildings with a steep hill blocking one end; or, that the construction started by plaintiff effectively is blocking this way and will utilize all of it for plaintiffs’ building. The I beams are shown clear across the top of the space; a huge pile of dirt blocks one end of the passageway; the footers outline the area taken. No one effective taking was possible until the work of enclosing was completed. If this isn’t possession, what is it?
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, vol. 3, defines possession in several different ways, none of which are contrary to my views herein expressed. Among these are: “The detention or enjoyment of a thing which a man holds or exercises by himself * * * .”
“By the possession of a thing we always conceive the condition in which not only one’s own dealing with the thing is physically possible, but every other person’s dealing with it is capable of being excluded.”
“Actual possession exists where the thing is in immediate occupancy of the party.”
“Possession is the occupation of anything with the intention of exercising the rights of ownership in respect to it.”
“Proof of the possession of property is commonly said to be prima facie evidence of title to it;”
To complete possession one must seize or occupy the land and have an intent to possess it. Both of these essentials were shown here.
In the instant case plaintiff made a prima facie showing of title but where he failed in his proof was in relying upon color of title for he could not bring himself within the requirements of our statute (C.R.S. ’53, 118-7-8). And not being able to offer proof of adverse possession of the land for the 18-year period required by C.R.S. ’53, 118-7-1, since he had only recently taken possession with the intent to exclude all others and *126extend part of his building onto it, he, of course, failed to establish any title in himself. If this building is completed and remains there for the lft-year period with intent to exclude all others, naturally he could then quiet title to this land.
Thus I believe it is not correct for the majority opinion to say that plaintiff had no possession when what should be said before applying the possession cases as determinative is that the plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession for any period required by our statutes.