Mannillo v. Gorski

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1969 · Property

Propertyadverse possessionhostilegood faithmistakeencroachmentadverse possessionhostility

Facts

Defendant and her husband entered possession of their lot in 1946 under an agreement to purchase, later receiving a deed in 1952. In 1946 and again in 1953, defendant made changes to her house and steps, and defendant admitted that the concrete steps and walk encroached 15 inches onto plaintiffs' adjoining lot. The trial court found that the encroachment had existed for more than 20 years and that possession was exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, and against the true owner's rights, but denied adverse possession because the encroachment resulted from mistake rather than a knowing intent to invade another's land. The visibility and notoriety of this small encroachment were also in dispute.

Issue

Whether possession under a mistaken belief of ownership can satisfy the hostility requirement for adverse possession. Also, whether a 15-inch boundary encroachment is sufficiently open and notorious to support adverse possession without proof that the true owner actually knew of it.

Rule

For adverse possession, hostility does not require a knowing or intentional wrongful taking; possession under a mistaken claim of title may be hostile if it is exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, visible, and notorious for the statutory period. But no presumption of knowledge arises from a minor encroachment along a common boundary; in such cases, possession is open and notorious only if the true owner had actual knowledge of the encroachment. Where an innocent encroacher has made an extensive improvement that cannot be removed without great expense or hardship, equity may require the true owner to convey the occupied land for its fair value if appropriate and if no serious damage would be done to the remainder.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Newark, Dana Ruiz bought a rowhouse lot in 1999. Believing an old iron fence marked the boundary, she landscaped and exclusively used a three-foot strip on her neighbor Leo Barrett's side for 22 years; she always thought the strip was included in her deed and never intended to take land she knew belonged to someone else.

If Leo sues to recover the strip, which is the strongest argument for Dana's adverse-possession claim on the hostility element?

Explanation. The majority rejected the rule that hostility requires a knowing intentional wrong. Possession under a mistaken claim of title may still be hostile, so long as the possession also meets the other traditional requirements, including exclusivity, continuity, visibility, and notoriety for the statutory period. Good-faith mistake does not automatically confer title, but it does not defeat hostility.