Mannillo v. Gorski case brief

 Mannillo v. Gorski, Sup. Ct. of NJ, 1969; FACTS

1. P seeking mandatory and prohibitory injunction against alleged trespass upon their land (steps encroaching) and D counterclaimed for declaratory judgment saying gained title to land by adverse possession
2. Issue – Whether there was requisite hostile possession, need to have known and intended? No.

Maine Rule – It is not adverse possession if the possessor did not intend or know; If it was done by mistake then it is not adverse possession

Connecticut Rule – Persons intention is not an element for cause of action, it is more about the nature of the act

--Court adopts Connecticut Rule

Issue – Whether open and notorious possession? Court had problem.

Rule – Can’t be hidden, visible and obvious and anyone who is paying attention could have seen it

Only where true owners has actual knowledge may it be said that the possession is open and notorious

Holding – No presumption of knowledge arises from a minor encroachment along a common boundary therefore lacked open and notorious, no adverse possession. Remand to try the issue of actual knowledge of the P.

Equity – Too much of a burden to take down the stairs; minor encroachment upon a common boundaries can be brought to a court of equity if:

Extensive valuable improvement of the property

Without encroachment the value will be lost

A.P. with actual knowledge or ask court of equity to get relief or order the owner to do something like convey property