From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bale v. Coffin

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One
Feb 22, 1971
479 P.2d 427 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-CIV 1335.

February 22, 1971.

Landowners brought quiet title action against adjoining landowners claiming title to disputed area by adverse possession. The Superior Court of Maricopa County, Cause No. C-204578, Yale McFate, J., rendered judgment favorable to landowners in part but unfavorable as to a small strip of land, and the landowners appealed. The Court of Appeals, Howard, J., held that evidence supported trial court's conclusion that landowners' possession of disputed area was not exclusive.

Affirmed.

Tognoni Pugh by Frederic W. Heineman, Phoenix, for appellants.

Hill Savoy by Philip W. Marquardt, Phoenix, for appellees.


This case involves a dispute between two neighbors as to the location of the boundary line between their properties. The appellants, plaintiffs below, brought a quiet title action against the appellees. At the trial of the action appellants claimed title by adverse possession. The trial court agreed with them as to part of the land in question but not as to a small strip of land where their properties meet a residential street.

Appellants' opening brief consists of sixty pages — fifty-nine of which are arguments on the factual issues.

In order that title may be acquired by adverse possession the possession of the claimant must be exclusive. Morgan v. Barrett, 17 Ariz. 376, 153 P. 449 (1915). To be effective as a means of acquiring title the possession of the adverse claimant must be exclusive of the true owner. 2 C.J.S. Adverse Possession § 48 at 566. The burden of proof is upon the person claiming title by adverse possession to show that the requisite elements thereof have been satisfied. Tenney v. Luplow, 103 Ariz. 363, 442 P.2d 107 (1968).

Both parties claimed that they watered and took care of the area in question. The evidence is conflicting on this issue. There is substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that the possession of appellants was not exclusive.

Affirmed.

KRUCKER, C.J., and HATHAWAY, J., concur.

NOTE: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division Two as authorized by A.R.S. § 12-120, subsec. E.


Summaries of

Bale v. Coffin

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One
Feb 22, 1971
479 P.2d 427 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971)
Case details for

Bale v. Coffin

Case Details

Full title:Robert B. BALE and Doris S. Bale, his wife, Appellants, v. Jerry D. COFFIN…

Court:Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One

Date published: Feb 22, 1971

Citations

479 P.2d 427 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971)
13 Ariz. App. 550

Citing Cases

Overson v. Cowley

The claimant's possession must not only be such as to exclude the owner, but must be such that possession is…

Conwell v. Allen

Appellants, who claimed ownership by adverse possession, had the burden of proving the requisite elements.…