Mannillo v. Gorski
255 A.2d 258 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1969
Facts
In 1946, the defendant and her husband purchased a property in BLeansburg. In the summer of 1946, the defendant's son extended the house and installed a concrete platform with steps and a concrete walk. In 1953, the defendant raised the house and modified the steps, extending them further. The plaintiffs acquired the adjacent lot in 1953. The defendant admits that her steps and concrete walk encroach upon the plaintiffs' land by 15 inches. She claims title to this strip by adverse possession, believing she owned the land. The plaintiffs argue that the encroachment was not hostile because it was based on a mistaken belief, not an intent to invade their rights.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Chancery Division seeking an injunction against trespass. Defendant counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of adverse possession. The Chancery Division entered judgment for the plaintiffs, finding the defendant's possession lacked the requisite hostile nature. Defendant appealed to the Appellate Division, and this Court granted defendant’s motion for certification before argument there.
Issue
First, whether an entry and continuance of possession under the mistaken belief that the possessor has title to the lands involved exhibits the requisite hostile possession for adverse possession. Second, whether a minor encroachment, not clearly apparent to the naked eye, meets the necessary standard of "open and notorious" possession.
Holding
The court held that possession under a mistaken belief of title can be hostile for adverse possession purposes. However, for minor encroachments along a common boundary, no presumption of knowledge arises, and the possession is only open and notorious if the true owner has actual knowledge. The case was remanded for trial to determine if the true owner had actual knowledge of the encroachment, and if not, whether the plaintiffs should be compelled to convey the disputed tract for fair value.
Rule
The court discarded the requirement that adverse possession must be accompanied by a knowing intentional hostility, holding that any exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, visible, and notorious possession for the required time, even under a mistaken claim of title, is sufficient. This rule favors the Connecticut doctrine over the Maine doctrine, which rewarded intentional wrongdoers. However, for minor encroachments along a common boundary, no presumption of knowledge arises; the possession is only open and notorious if the true owner has actual knowledge. If an innocent trespasser's minor encroachment cannot be removed without great expense or hardship, equity may compel the true owner to convey the land upon payment of fair value, provided no serious damage is done to the remaining property.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.