Court Opinion

ID: 9546995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:39:25.35924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:07.814437
License: Public Domain

Price, J.
(dissenting): I am unable to agree with the holding of the court in this case. As I read this record there is only one conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, namely, the parties simply occupied their respective properties up to the fence line in the mistaken belief that it was on the true and correct boundary line between lots 23 and 25. While it is true that defendants acquiesced in such occupancy by plaintiffs, yet I do not think such mere acquiescence, under the facts of this case, can be held to constitute an agreement between the parties that the fence was the dividing line between their properties.
In rendering judgment for plaintiffs the trial court did not base its holding upon any specific ground, such as adverse possession, agreement of the parties, or estoppel; but, it seems clear to me that the court’s reasoning must have been based upon one or all three of those grounds. I have already indicated that I think there was a total lack of evidence so as to work an estoppel either by agreement of the parties or acquiescence on the part of defendants. And, with reference to adverse possession, the rule in this state is well-settled. In a very recent case (Wilson v. Pum Ze, 167 Kan. 31, 204 P. 2d 723), in which many of our earlier authorities were reviewed, it was held:
"Many other decisions of this court have settled the proposition that mistaken and unintentional possession in opposition to the true title holder, con*56tinued over a long period of time through ignorance and inadvertence, will not constitute such adverse possession as will ripen into title by prescription.” (p. 33.)
In that decision we quoted from Craig v. Paulk, 162 Kan. 280, 176 P. 2d 529, where it was said:
“Ownership of land cannot be established by adverse possession where occupancy was taken and continued under a mistake as to the true boundary line and where no clear intention is shown to claim the land to a certain line regardless of whether such line is the correct boundary.” (Syl. 4.)
In Steinbruck v. Babb, 148 Kan. 668, 84 P. 2d 907, it was stated:
“Open, notorious and exclusive occupancy of a strip of land for the period required by the statute of limitations, under the mistaken belief that the fence constituted the true boundary between the adjoining landowners, is not sufficient to make the possession adverse or hostile, but there must be proof or a conclusive inference of an unconditional intent to claim title and notice of such hostile intent or acquiescence therein.” (Syl. 1.)
And so here. To me this is simply a situation where the parties over a period of years regarded the fence as the true boundary on account of a mistaken belief on the part of all concerned. I find nothing in the record to indicate that plaintiffs occupied all footage clear to the fence with any hostile intention to claim everything to the fence regardless of whether the fence was on the true and correct boundary. Both parties were simply mistaken and the mistake was not known until the survey was made. For the reasons stated I feel that the judgment of the lower court must be reversed.
Wedell and Parker, JJ., join in the foregoing dissenting opinion.