Doan v. Bogart

2 Citing cases

  1. Mid-Valley Resources, Inc. v. Foxglove Properties, LLP

    280 Or. App. 784 (Or. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 5 times
    Recognizing "the enduring line of authority specifying that a dedication for public use is not presumed," and citing cases

    Slak , 128 Or.App. at 278–79, 875 P.2d 515. For example, we explained in Slak that the act of constructing a fence “is recognized as a ‘classic’ example of the type of use that satisfies the requirement of open and notorious use.” Id. at 279, 875 P.2d 515 (quoting Doan v. Bogart , 254 Or. 42, 43, 456 P.2d 1001 (1969) ). On the record here, the acts of erecting a gate across the entrance to the easement and posting “no trespassing” signs permitted a finding that the Timmonses manifested the intention to control access to the easement, and that their use provided constructive notice that the Timmonses were asserting ownership over the area of the easement.

  2. Slak v. Porter

    128 Or. App. 274 (Or. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 13 times

    Notice of the adverse possession may be actual or constructive. Corson v. Williford, supra, 44 Or App at 149. Construction of a fence, in fact, is recognized as a "classic" example of the type of use that satisfies the requirement of open and notorious use. Doan v. Bogart, 254 Or. 42, 43, 456 P.2d 1001 (1969). Moreover, the testimony of prior owners removes any doubt that they were aware of the fence and the vegetation and the extent to which both blocked the easement.