Wis. Stat. § 893.25
Wis. Stat. § 893.25
Where a survey established that disputed lands were not within the calls of the possessor's deed, the possessor's claim to property was not under color of title by a written instrument. Beasley v. Konczal, 87 Wis. 2d 233, 275 N.W.2d 634 (1979). Acts that are consistent with sporadic trespass are insufficient to apprise the owner of an adverse claim. Pierz v. Gorski, 88 Wis. 2d 131, 276 N.W.2d 352 (Ct. App. 1979). When evidence is presented as to the extent of occupancy of only a portion of land, only that portion may be awarded in adverse possession proceedings. Droege v. Daymaker Cranberries, Inc., 88 Wis. 2d 140, 276 N.W.2d 356 (Ct. App. 1979). A judgment under s. 75.521 to foreclose a tax lien extinguishes all right, title, and interest in the foreclosed property, including claims based on adverse possession. Published notice was sufficient. Leciejewski v. Sedlak, 116 Wis. 2d 629, 342 N.W.2d 734 (1984). A railroad right-of-way is subject to adverse possession, the same as other lands. Meiers v. Wang, 192 Wis. 2d 115, 531 N.W.2d 54 (1995). Land may be acquired by adverse possession, without adverse intent, when the true owner acquiesces in another's possession for 20 years. If adjoining owners take from a common grantor by lot number, but the grantees purchased with reference to a boundary actually marked on the ground, the marked boundary, regardless of time, controls. Arnold v. Robbins, 209 Wis. 2d 428, 563 N.W.2d 178 (1997), 96-0570. The 20-year period under this section need not be the 20 years immediately preceding the filing of the court action. Harwick v. Black, 217 Wis. 2d 691, 580 N.W.2d 354 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-1108. The use of a surveyor is not required to establish the boundaries of the contested property as long as there is evidence that provides a reasonably accurate basis for the circuit court to know what property is in dispute. Camacho v. Trimble Irrevocable Trust, 2008 WI App 112, 313 Wis. 2d 272, 756 N.W.2d 596, 07-1472. If the claimant's use gives the titleholder reasonable notice that the claimant is asserting ownership and the titleholder does nothing, that failure to respond may result in losing title. However, in the absence of such use by the claimant, the titleholder is not obligated to do anything in order to retain title. Peter H. & Barbara J. Steuck Living Trust v. Easley, 2010 WI App 74, 325 Wis. 2d 455, 784 N.W.2d 631, 09-0757. The regular use of a disputed area for hunting, placement of deer stands, and the making of a dirt road to a lake did not constitute open, notorious, visible, exclusive, and hostile use. The sound of gunshots does not gives a reasonably diligent titleholder notice of adverse possession. Gunshots would have been consistent with trespassers, as would portable deer stands, some kept in place all year. The dirt road and the trail continuing on to the lake were consistent with an easement to the lake rather than adverse possession of the entire disputed parcel. Peter H. & Barbara J. Steuck Living Trust v. Easley, 2010 WI App 74, 325 Wis. 2d 455, 784 N.W.2d 631, 09-0757. In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, one who adversely possesses under an earlier version of the adverse possession statute may continue possession under the terms of that statute even after its repeal and re-creation. DNR v. Building & All Related or Attached Structures, 2011 WI App 119, 336 Wis. 2d 642, 803 N.W.2d 86, 10-2076. The "claim of title" requirement in this section is the statutory equivalent of the common law "hostility" requirement. The plain meaning of "claim of title" is that a possessor must subjectively intend to claim ownership of the disputed property. Although the "claim of title" requirement is presumed when all other elements of adverse possession are established, this presumption may be rebutted with evidence that a party never intended to assert ownership over the property. A party who expressly disclaims ownership of property and seeks permission for its use is not "claiming title" to the property. Wilcox v. Estate of Hines, 2014 WI 60, 355 Wis. 2d 1, 849 N.W.2d 280, 12-1869. The true owner's casual reentry upon property does not defeat the continuity or exclusivity of an adverse claimant's possession. The true owner's reentry should be a substantial and material interruption and a notorious reentry for the purpose of dispossessing the adverse occupant. The claimant's possession need not be absolutely exclusive of all individuals, and need only be a type of possession that would characterize an owner's use of the property. Kruckenberg v. Krukar, 2017 WI App 70, 378 Wis. 2d 314, 903 N.W.2d 164, 17-0124. The "substantial enclosure" requirement is flexible and subject to no precise rule in all cases as so much depends upon the nature and situation of the property. All that is required is some indication of the boundaries of the adverse possession to give notice and need only be reasonably sufficient to attract the attention of the true owner and put him or her on inquiry as to the nature and extent of the invasion of his or her rights. A fence is universally recognized as a way to indicate a boundary line. Kruckenberg v. Krukar, 2017 WI App 70, 378 Wis. 2d 314, 903 N.W.2d 164, 17-0124. Hey! That's my land! Understanding Adverse Possession. Shrestha. Wis. Law. Mar. 2010. Wait! Is That Land? More On Adverse Possession. Shrestha. Wis. Law. July/Aug. 2015.