Court Limits Application of Adverse Possession Doctrine

Claiming ownership by adverse possession requires proof of the elements- that possession was hostile, actual, open, exclusive and continuous, for at least ten years. But, must a claim for adverse possession be based on a belief of ownership arising from the establishment of the elements? If so, can adverse possession ever arise apart from a boundary dispute? 

In this case, the plaintiff asserted ownership of a parcel of land adjacent to her property, that the defendant owned. Since 1958, the plaintiff had cared for the tract by weeding the area, mowing, and planting grass and trees. The plaintiff claimed that she openly used the parcel as an extension of her back yard. When she wanted to purchase the property, she searched the real estate records, but couldn’t determine ownership of the parcel. In 1989, the plaintiff prepared an affidavit of possession for the parcel, not knowing that the legal description of the parcel was incorrect. The defendant sent the plaintiff a letter in 2005, stating that he was the rightful owner of the parcel. But, the plaintiff went ahead and  filed an action to quiet title to the tract.         

The trial court refused to quiet title to the tract in the plaintiff, and also refused to impose sanctions on the defendant. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish any of the elements of adverse possession. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that she was entitled to possession because she established a claim of right to the property. But, the court noted, for a plaintiff to properly assert a claim of right in a parcel of land, the plaintiff’s conduct must “clearly indicate ownership.” Additionally, the claim of right must be asserted in good faith. Here, the plaintiff knew she did not have title and did not even have a basis for claiming possession. Essentially, lacking a good faith claim, the court relegated the plaintiff to the level of a “mere squatter.” Though the plaintiff’s conduct indicated ownership, her lack of good faith claim of right failed to establish adverse possession.

The fact that the plaintiff diligently searched for the true owner was not enough to overcome the lack of true ownership in the property. A mere belief of ownership does not establish the good faith requirement. Further, the plaintiff appealed the trial court’s ruling that sanctions be imposed against the defendant. Since no violation occurred, the trial court’s ruling was proper. Clymer v. Shawd, No. 7-475/06-1155, 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 1080 (Iowa Ct. App., Oct. 12, 2007).