Court Opinion

ID: 9709523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:49:48.953094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:48.947442
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I would reverse since a genuine issue of fact exists as to the payment of property taxes upon the portion of real estate in question. IC 1971, 32-1-20-1 is clear and unambiguous. This statute requires that a person who is claiming adverse possession of real estate must show that he paid taxes upon said real estate during the time he claimed the adverse possession.
Echterling et ux. v. Kalvaitis et ux. (1955), 235 Ind. 141, 126 N.E.2d 573 in effect repealed by judicial decree the plain meaning of the statute. Echterling v. Kalvaitis, supra, should be overruled and the plain and unambiguous meaning of the statute returned to it as was contemplated by the Legislature which adopted it.