The Iowa courts have been dealing with numerous boundary dispute cases in recent months. A common theme (one which, apparently, many Iowans don’t understand) is that property usage is often the key to establishing property boundaries instead of a survey. Again, that was the issue in this case.
At issue in this case was ownership of a 3.1 acre parcel. The plaintiffs had purchased farmland in 1987 that did not include a 5.5 acre tract which was owned by another party. The defendants bought the 5.5 acres in 2006. There hadn’t been any fences or boundary markers separating the parcels, but shortly after the plaintiff bought the farmland in 1987, he put in steel posts and fencing on one side to separate it from the 5.5 acres that he didn’t buy. He was still farming the land in 2006 when the defendants purchased the 5.5 acres, and their survey revealed that 3.1 acres of the land the plaintiff was farming were located on land the defendant purchased. So, instead of working out the matter with the plaintiff, the defendant had the fence, steel posts, wire and a portion of the plaintiff’s crop taken out. After all, the survey showed that the plaintiff was farming on the defendant’s ground. As expected, the plaintiff wasn’t amused by the defendant’s conduct and sued to quiet title to the disputed tract that he had been farming for almost 20 years.
The trial court ruled against the plaintiff. According to the trial court, the plaintiff had not adversely possessed the disputed property for the required 10 years. The court reasoned that simply putting up steel posts and farming already tillable ground without construction of additional improvements (such as fences, buildings or clearing of the land) wasn’t enough to alert the true owner that the property was being adversely possessed. But, the appellate court reversed. 20 years worth of cultivating, planting and harvesting crops from the property is enough to constitute acts of ownership that amount to holding, managing and caring for the property – that’s what a true owner of the property would do. The court also noted that it was immaterial that the plaintiff did not expressly tell the party from whom the defendant’s bought the parcel that the plaintiff was going to adversely possess the property. That’s not an element of adverse possession. The plaintiff didn’t hide his farming activities. So, the plaintiff’s actions amounted to hostile, actual, open, exclusive and continuous possession under claim of right of color of title for at least 10 years. The plaintiff will have title to the disputed property. Stewart v. Judy, No. 8-251/07-1510 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2008).