Roemer v. Eversman

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Roemer v. Eversman

304 N.W.2d 653, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1249

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 10, 1981

Docket50993

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 304 N.W.2d 653 (Roemer v. Eversman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roemer v. Eversman, 304 N.W.2d 653, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1249 (Mich. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

SHERAN, Chief Justice.

Respondents claim that a fence line between the common southwest boundary of the parties’ farm was recognized by the parties and their predecessors in title for some fifty years. They claim title by adverse possession to the land between the original fence line and a new fence constructed by appellants along a survey line established recently by a surveyor. Third District Judge Glenn E. Kelley granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that no issue of material fact existed with regard to the adverse possession claim. We reverse.

In Minnesota, one cannot bring an action for the recovery of real estate unless “the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, was seized or possessed of the premises in question within 15 years before the beginning of the action.” Minn.Stat. § 541.02 (1980). In order to gain title by adverse possession, “the disseizor must show, by clear and convincing evidence, an actual, open, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession for the requisite period of time.” Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 189, 197 N.W.2d 458, 462 (1972). We have stated that hostile possession “is manifested by [the disseizor’s] acts in improving and occupying it under such apparent claim.” Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81, 84, 16 N.W. 495, 496 (1883).

In his affidavit, appellant Vincent Eversman addressed the element of hostile possession. He stated that “the Plaintiffs have not occupied or used that parcel of land located between the fence which had *654 been run from tree to tree and the new fence as constructed by your Defendants.” The affidavit raises a question as to a material element of any adverse possession claim: whether there was continuous and “hostile” use over a 15-year period. In addition, even if there were no issue of material fact, the pleadings, interrogatories, and affidavits fail to establish proof of any continuous hostile possession, much less evidence that this possession existed over a 15-year period. Therefore, this is not an appropriate case for summary judgment. See Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259, 143 N.W.2d 65 (1966).

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

SHERAN, Chief Justice.

Respondents claim that a fence line between the common southwest boundary of the parties’ farm was recognized by the parties and their predecessors in title for some fifty years. They claim title by adverse possession to the land between the original fence line and a new fence constructed by appellants along a survey line established recently by a surveyor. Third District Judge Glenn E. Kelley granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that no issue of material fact existed with regard to the adverse possession claim. We reverse.

In Minnesota, one cannot bring an action for the recovery of real estate unless “the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, was seized or possessed of the premises in question within 15 years before the beginning of the action.” Minn.Stat. § 541.02 (1980). In order to gain title by adverse possession, “the disseizor must show, by clear and convincing evidence, an actual, open, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession for the requisite period of time.” Ehle v. Prosser, 293 Minn. 183, 189, 197 N.W.2d 458, 462 (1972). We have stated that hostile possession “is manifested by [the disseizor’s] acts in improving and occupying it under such apparent claim.” Seymour, Sabin & Co. v. Carli, 31 Minn. 81, 84, 16 N.W. 495, 496 (1883).

In his affidavit, appellant Vincent Eversman addressed the element of hostile possession. He stated that “the Plaintiffs have not occupied or used that parcel of land located between the fence which had *654 been run from tree to tree and the new fence as constructed by your Defendants.” The affidavit raises a question as to a material element of any adverse possession claim: whether there was continuous and “hostile” use over a 15-year period. In addition, even if there were no issue of material fact, the pleadings, interrogatories, and affidavits fail to establish proof of any continuous hostile possession, much less evidence that this possession existed over a 15-year period. Therefore, this is not an appropriate case for summary judgment. See Ahlm v. Rooney, 274 Minn. 259, 143 N.W.2d 65 (1966).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 N.W.2d 653, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roemer-v-eversman-minn-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack