I was reviewing an adverse possession case where both parties lost. The plaintiff lost because they squatted from 1958 to now. They testified they did not have title to the land. "The requirement of good faith claim of right prevents mere squatters, who know they do not have title to land and know there is no basis to claim an interest in the land, from benefiting from adverse possession."
The defendant lost because they received a quit claim deed from a RR that did not own it. It was interesting that the only owner of record that the plaintiff could trace was the original owner in 1882. They had their attorney file an affidavit of possession which the court said was worthless as it did not include the description of the land possessed. The court said the only party action could be brought against were the heirs or assigns of the 1882 patent. I'd say the big loser is the defendant. The squatter is still squatting. Their loss are fees paid for a trial court and appeals court trial. The defendant discovered he has a worthless deed to the piece in question plus a much larger area the the RR sold to him when they only had a reversion easement.
I wonder if the plaintiff might actually be the assign they seek from 1882 after all is said and done. That was not part of the case. It might be they are occupying their own land.?ÿ The defendant forced the issue by asking the plaintiff to vacate in 2005.?ÿ?ÿ
Interesting case.?ÿ I'd like to know how this one pans out.?ÿ Did the court order a search for the heirs of the 1882 patent?
Did the case say anything about payment of taxes?
They put the burden on the plaintiff.?ÿ
Defendant places considerable reliance on the fact plaintiff failed for many years to pay taxes on the land. This is a fact bearing on the question of plaintiff's good faith. We have, however, held payment of taxes is not essential to acquisition of title by adverse possession.
This comes from a different Supreme Court case that is regularly cited when tax payment comes up. I believe the defendant was or is paying taxes on the land but it wasn't a focus in the opinion.?ÿ
@norm?ÿ
I was told by an attorney one time,?ÿ
"JUDGES make mistakes all the time. If you're in court, you take the chance of losing your point of view especially if your lawyer doesn't know the judge outside of the courtroom,?ÿ and especially if they've never presented a a trial before them."
Makes you go hmmmmm....
I suppose it's not too beneficial to your own cause to ask the judge to quiet title and then testify you know you don't have any.?ÿ
@norm?ÿ
That's another lawyer's adage:
A lawyer whom represents himself before the court has a fool for a client.
?ÿ
Defendant places considerable reliance on the fact plaintiff failed for many years to pay taxes on the land. This is a fact bearing on the question of plaintiff's good faith. We have, however, held payment of taxes is not essential to acquisition of title by adverse possession.
I believe that I have read those exact words in at least one Oregon case.
Simple Google search for Iowa adverse possession railroad 1958 1882
I didn't get the search terms right at first, but it didn't take long.
We have, however, held payment of taxes is not essential to acquisition of title by adverse possession.
I believe payment of taxis is still a requirement in California in order to perfect an AP claim.
If you want to dig deeper, these Dallas Co., Iowa documents are relevant:
1999/014348?ÿ CMC to Shawd
2006/9802?ÿ survey for Shawd and others of land along former railroad. Includes court order quieting title for others against claim of Shawd. Clymer not seen in document.
707/848-849 Easement from Clymer to phone company
2017/13828 Deed from Clymer
It appears that Violet Clymer moved to an apartment when she sold this property, and then died at age 101 in 2018.
?ÿ
The plat and decree gives quiet title to some of Railroad Street to Jones who owns the lot west of Clymer's and Haas who I haven't located, probably because of a subsequent sale.?ÿ The GIS shows Jones as owning further north than Clymer's successor.?ÿ?ÿ So the cases seem to have gotten mixed results.
Clymer can??t quiet title on the weakness of Shawd??s title.
Its been a while since I??ve read about California AP but I don??t think claim of right requires a good faith belief in title. Tax payment is required, however.
If we can't laugh at ourselves once in a while, who can we laugh at.
"I believe payment of taxis is still a requirement in California in order to perfect an AP claim."
That caught me in just the right mood.?ÿ Still chuckling.
This from a guy who looked at his own survey from last year to discover he had labeled half of a vacated street as being the entire street.?ÿ Funny things happen.
@bill93?ÿ
The plot thickens. It appears Clymer's neighbors were successful at the district court level against Shawd and that the court ordered the survey. Clymer was not successful at district court and took it to the appeals court about a year after the trial court ordered survey.?ÿ So the county still shows the Shawd quitclaim part of the district court ordered survey behind Clymer as his even though the appeals court said no. I don't know who else they could show as the owner given no one knows. I guess if Shawd is paying taxes they don't care.?ÿ
I looked up the district court index and although I can't get to the cases for review I can see that Clymer asked for a quiet title action separately a year after the neighbors to the west did. Clymer probably heard that they prevailed. I also see that the defendant in both cases a year after the Clymer trial was plaintiff to quiet the 1882 estate. The index says that case was closed. That case may have been closed because Clymer did not prevail at the appeals court.?ÿ
