Charlton v. Crocker
Court
of Appeals of
665
S.W.2d 56.
Johnson,
pp. 59-65
Facts: The Crockers bought two
lots in a subdivision. There were a
series of fires threatening the Crockers, and they wanted to cut the brush in some
of the neighboring lots. When they asked
about doing this, the county prosecutor told them in passing that they could
get the land by adverse possession in ten years if they aren’t paid for their
labor. So the Crockers started clearing
the brush from the adjacent lots. Later,
the Charltons bought the lots and sued the Crockers. The Crockers won at trial, and the Charltons
appealed.
Issue: Did the Crockers acquire
title to the lots in dispute by adverse possession?
Rule: The defendants must show actual,
hostile, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous possession of the
property in dispute for the statutory period.
Analysis: The main reason that the
Crocker’s claim fails here is because there is evidence that they didn’t really
subjectively believe that they had a right to occupy the adjacent lots. Mrs. Crocker said they moved their mobile
home because they were concerned that it was too close to the line between
their lot and another that they are now claiming to own. Because they seem not to have really believed
they were entitled to the land, the element of hostile possession is not satisfied.
Conclusion: The trial court is reversed
and the Charltons get the land.