From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Palmer v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 20, 2002
No. 1-1003 / 00-1814 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2002)

Opinion

No. 1-1003 / 00-1814.

Filed February 20, 2002.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, GARY E. WENELL, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Billy F. Palmer appeals from the district court's refusal to grant his petition to quiet title to him in Lot One (1) of Block Nine (9) in Booge's West Side Addition to the City of Sioux City, Woodbury County, Iowa. REVERSED, TITLE QUIETED IN PLAINTIFF.

Billy Palmer, Sioux City, pro se.

Patrick Parry, Sioux City, for appellee.

Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and MAHAN and HECHT, JJ.


Plaintiff-appellant Billy F. Palmer appeals from the district court's refusal to grant his petition to quiet title to him in Lot One (1) of Block Nine (9) in Booge's West Side Addition to the City of Sioux City, Woodbury County, Iowa. Plaintiff contends he proved he took the lot by adverse possession under a claim of right. The determinative issue on appeal is whether the district court misinterpreted the law governing claim of right in finding plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proof. We reverse the district court and quiet title to the lot in plaintiff.

This matter was tried in equity, consequently our review is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 4; Mitchell v. Daniels, 509 N.W.2d 497, 498 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993).

On September 11, 1982 plaintiff purchased by warranty deed from one Godberson less than an acre of land described in the deed as Lots two (2), three (3), four (4) and five (5), Booge's West Side Addition, Sioux City, Iowa. Lot one (1) was not conveyed. Plaintiff testified lot numbers were not discussed but the property now identified as Lot one (1) was part of the property between the fences which Godberson showed him to be the land he was purchasing. Plaintiff did not at the time of purchase or when recording the deed have an abstract examined, look at a plat to see where his lots were located, have a survey done or determine who owned adjoining lots. Yet there is no evidence plaintiff was ever aware he had not purchased the property in question.

Plaintiff, under the impression that he purchased all land between the fence lines, improved all the lots that were conveyed to him by warranty deed, and also improved Lot one (1). He took trees and shrubs from the property, landscaped it, installed electrical power, fenced it, put in fill dirt and put out "No Trespassing" signs. Plaintiff at the time of trial had occupied Lot one (1) for nineteen years. The district court found, and we agree, plaintiff made improvements and maintained the property for nineteen years.

On November 24, 1999, plaintiff brought this petition to quiet title against Troy Jones. Jones purchased Lot one (1) from Woodbury County, Iowa at a public auction for $100 on April 13, 1999, and it was quit claimed to him by Woodbury County.

After trial the district court denied plaintiff's claim finding while there was more than adequate proof of plaintiff's possession, use of the land, and his acting as an owner, plaintiff failed to show a claim of right in good faith. The court concluded a claim of right cannot exist if the one contending he has a claim of right has knowledge of another good claim to the property and that he is charged with actual and constructive knowledge of recorded documents at the courthouse. The district court further concluded that one making a claim of right has an obligation to ascertain what the recorded documents show and other facts that could be learned by reasonable inquiry.

A party claiming title by adverse possession must establish hostile, actual, open, exclusive and continuous possession, under claim of right or color of title for at least ten years. C.H. Moore Trust Estate by Warner v. City of Storm Lake, 423 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Iowa 1988); Marksbury v. State, 322 N.W.2d 281, 287 (Iowa 1982). Proof of these elements must be "clear and positive." Carpenter v. Ruperto, 315 N.W.2d 782, 784 (Iowa 1982). Since the law presumes possession is under a regular title, the doctrine of adverse possession is strictly construed. C.H. Moore Trust, 423 N.W.2d at 6; Carpenter, 315 N.W.2d. at 281.

To establish adverse possession a claimant need not establish both color of title and claim of right; either will suffice. C.H. Moore Trust, 423 N.W.2d at 16; Council Bluffs Sav. Bank v. Simmons, 243 N.W.2d 634, 636 (Iowa), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1001, 97 S.Ct. 532, 50 L.Ed.2d 613 (1976). Ownership cannot be acquired by claim of right by one who knows he does not have good title. See Carpenter, 315 N.W.2d at 785. When knowledge of lack of title is accompanied by knowledge of no basis for claiming an interest in that property, a good faith claim cannot be established. Id. at 785-86. Plaintiff here contends he showed he took the land under a claim of right.

It is not necessary to establish a claim of right by an express declaration; it is sufficient if claimant has acted so as to clearly indicate he did claim title. C.H. Moore Trust, 423 N.W.2d at 16. It need not be based on writing. Id.

The actual occupation, use, and improvement of the premises by the claimant, as if he were in fact the owner thereof without payment of rent or recognition of title in another or disavowal of title in himself, will be sufficient to raise a presumption of his entry and holding as absolute owner and, unless rebutted, will establish the fact of a claim of right.

Council Bluffs, 243 N.W.2d at 636 (quoting 3 Am.Jur.2d Adverse Possession § 101, at 184-85 (1962)). It is enough if the person pleading the statute takes and maintains such possession and exercises such open dominion as ordinarily marks the conduct of owners in general, in holding, managing, and caring for property of like nature and condition. Whalen v. Smith, 183 Iowa 949, 953, 167 N.W. 646, 647 (1918). Although mere use does not constitute hostility or a claim of right, some specific acts or conduct associated with the use will give rise to a claim of right. Collins Trust v. Allamakee County Bd. of Sup'rs, 599 N.W.2d 460, 465 (Iowa 1999); see also Barnes v. Robertson, 156 Iowa 730, 733-34, 137 N.W. 1018, 1019 (1912); Lynch v. Lynch, 239 Iowa 1245, 1255, 34 N.W.2d 485, 490 (1948). Acts of maintaining and improving land can support a claim of ownership and hostility to the true owner. Collins, 599 N.W.2d at 465. The payment of taxes is not essential to a successful claim of adverse possession. See I-80 Assocs., Inc. v. Chicago, R.I. Pac. R.R., 224 N.W.2d 8, 10 (Iowa 1974); Mitchell v. Daniels, 509 N.W.2d 497, 500 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993). One is not deprived of the benefit of the statute of limitations merely because his claim of right is unenforceable or his title is known to be defective. Creel v. Hammans, 234 Iowa 532, 535, 13 N.W.2d 305, 307 (1944). An oral transfer of real estate followed by the taking, possession and occupancy, constitutes a valid conveyance. Lynch, 239 Iowa at 1255, 34 N.W. at 490.

The doctrine of adverse possession presupposes a defective title. It is not based on, but is hostile to, the true title. If the statute were to run only in favor of a valid title, it would serve no purpose. The holder of such a title has no need to invoke the statute. Where bad faith is held to negative an alleged claim of right, it is only another way of saying that such claim has been disproved.

Carpenter, 315 N.W.2d at 782 (quoting Creel, 234 Iowa at 533, 13 N.W.2d at 307)). "Nevertheless, when knowledge of lack of title is accompanied by knowledge of no basis for claiming an interest in the property, a good faith claim of right cannot be established." Id.

This distinguishes this case from Carpenter, 315 N.W.2d at 785 and Mitchell, 509 N.W.2d at 499 where the party claiming by adverse possession knew they did not have title to the property claimed.

There is no evidence that plaintiff knew when shown the land he was purchasing that it did not include Lot one (1). We find plaintiff believed in good faith he purchased Lot one (1) based upon the seller's representation the disputed land was included in the conveyance of Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. This distinguishes the instant case from Carpenter and Mitchell where the parties claiming by adverse possession knew they did not hold title to the subject real estate. Plaintiff's claim of right is not based solely upon the seller's representation and plaintiff's resulting good faith subjective belief the disputed land was included in the conveyance, but also upon plaintiff's actual occupation, use and improvement of the premises. We disagree with the district court's holding that plaintiff's failure to make further inquiry as to the ownership of the land defeated his showing of a claim of right. In Carpenter, the court noted if the doctrine of adverse possession ran "only in favor of a valid title, it would serve no purpose." Carpenter, 315 N.W.2d at 782. Accordingly, title to Lot One (1) of Block Nine (9), Booge's West Side Addition, City of Sioux City, Woodbury County, Iowa is quieted in plaintiff.

REVERSED.


Summaries of

Palmer v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Feb 20, 2002
No. 1-1003 / 00-1814 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2002)
Case details for

Palmer v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:BILLY F. PALMER, A/K/A BILL F. PALMER, A/K/A WILLIAM F. PALMER, A/K/A BILL…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Feb 20, 2002

Citations

No. 1-1003 / 00-1814 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2002)