Carpenter v. Ruperto case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
315
N.W.2d 782
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff property owner
sought review of a decision of the Polk District Court (Iowa), which
found for defendant property owners in plaintiff's action to quiet
title on a theory of adverse possession. Defendants cross-appealed
from a portion of the decree awarding plaintiff limited relief on
equitable grounds.
FACTS: The property, which plaintiff claimed to have acquired by adverse possession was the south 60 feet of defendants' lot. She claimed open, exclusive, hostile, adverse, and actual possession under a claim of right. She installed a propane tank on the parcel and used part of it as a driveway. The trial court held in part that she did not establish her possession was under a claim of right. However, it ordered defendants to "do equity" by deeding to her the strip of land her driveway was on and to pay the costs of moving the propane tank to her lot. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment on the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal.
HOLDING:
The court held that good faith was essential to adverse possession under a claim of right.
FACTS: The property, which plaintiff claimed to have acquired by adverse possession was the south 60 feet of defendants' lot. She claimed open, exclusive, hostile, adverse, and actual possession under a claim of right. She installed a propane tank on the parcel and used part of it as a driveway. The trial court held in part that she did not establish her possession was under a claim of right. However, it ordered defendants to "do equity" by deeding to her the strip of land her driveway was on and to pay the costs of moving the propane tank to her lot. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment on the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal.
HOLDING:
The court held that good faith was essential to adverse possession under a claim of right.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff failed to prove a good faith claim of right. She knew her lot did not include the cornfield north of it. At the time she entered possession of the disputed land, plaintiff knew she had no legal right to do so. Possession for the statutory period could not be bootstrapped into a basis for claiming a right to possession. Defendants' cross-appeal was untimely and compliance with he time limitations for taking a cross-appeal was mandatory and jurisdictional.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the decree holding that plaintiff failed to prove a good faith claim of right and dismissed the cross-appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff failed to prove a good faith claim of right. She knew her lot did not include the cornfield north of it. At the time she entered possession of the disputed land, plaintiff knew she had no legal right to do so. Possession for the statutory period could not be bootstrapped into a basis for claiming a right to possession. Defendants' cross-appeal was untimely and compliance with he time limitations for taking a cross-appeal was mandatory and jurisdictional.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the decree holding that plaintiff failed to prove a good faith claim of right and dismissed the cross-appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment