Romans v. Nadler

72 Citing cases

  1. LeBlanc Bros. v. Fish

    A11-2009 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 23, 2012)

    "Adverse possession of real property ripens into title in the adverse possessor or disseizor where it continues for the period allowed for the recovery of real estate, which is 15 years." Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 177, 14 N.W.2d 482, 485 (1944); see Minn. Stat. § 541.02 (2010) (establishing limitations period). "The possession of successive occupants, if there is privity between them, may be tacked to make adverse possession for the requisite period."

  2. Rollins v. Krueger

    No. A06-248 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    A prescriptive easement is based on prior continuous use and grants a right to use the property of another. Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 181, 14 N.W.2d 482, 486-87 (1944). As such, a prescriptive easement is a "servitude imposed upon corporeal property."

  3. Langfield v. Pfannkuch

    No. C8-98-489 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 1998)

    Our supreme court has held that periodically passing onto adjoining urban property to maintain a house on one's own property is not sufficiently hostile and continuous to establish a prescriptive easement. Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 181-83, 14 N.W.2d 482, 486-87 (1944). In Romans, respondent Romans periodically, and without permission, placed his ladder on the neighbor's lawn to paint his house and repair and maintain his windows.

  4. Stanard v. Urban

    453 N.W.2d 733 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that using land to store equipment during winter months, mowing the land during the summer, and permitting children to play on the land was not sufficient to establish title by adverse possession

    We agree. The use of the Stanard property by the Urbans before that is best classified as occasional and sporadic, failing to satisfy the elements of adverse possession.SeeRomans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 178, 14 N.W.2d 482, 485 (1944). This decision is not meant to state that, as a matter of law, adverse possession cannot start until one puts up a building or other permanent or semi-permanent structure.

  5. Wheeler v. Newman

    394 N.W.2d 620 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 12 times
    Affirming that claimant's use of a driveway on a neighbor's land was exclusive even though historically there had been heavy use of the driveway by the public, when the public use was only sporadic in the preceding 15 years

    With both, a person, through his prolonged actions, gains an interest in property that he did not previously have. Through adverse possession, a person gains title to land. See Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 177, 14 N.W.2d 482, 485 (1944). Through a prescriptive easement, a person gains the right to use land for certain purposes.

  6. Rogers v. Moore

    603 N.W.2d 650 (Minn. 1999)   Cited 302 times
    Holding that even significant errors, if clerical in nature, may be corrected by the district court nunc pro tunc

    A prescriptive easement is based on prior continuous use and grants a right to use the property of another. See Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 181, 14 N.W.2d 482, 486-87 (1944). As such, a prescriptive easement is a "servitude imposed upon corporeal property."

  7. Saba v. Anderson

    No. A20-1291 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2021)

    The claimant's use must be sufficient to make it known that the use is adverse. Romans v. Nadler, 14 N.W.2d 482, 485 (Minn. 1944). A prescriptive easement cannot be established based on "occasional and sporadic acts for temporary purposes."

  8. Wasiluk v. City of Shoreview

    No. A04-2021 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 26, 2005)

    A prescriptive easement is based on prior continuous use and grants a right to use the property of another. See Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 181, 14 N.W.2d 482, 486-87 (1944). As such, a prescriptive easement is a "servitude imposed upon corporeal property."

  9. In the Matter of the Application of Ganje

    659 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 42 times
    Holding adverse possessor's sporadic use of disputed area was reasonable given nature of property

    As one case put it, the disseizor must not only possess the property, he or she must make that fact known by keeping their "flag flying." Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 178, 14 N.W.2d 482, 485 (1944). Appellants argue that respondents' possession of portions of the disputed property was not actual and open and therefore did not put them on notice that respondents claimed the property adversely.

  10. Owens v. Kelly

    No. C7-02-411 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2002)

    The Owenses argue that the Randalls' and the Kellys' use of the property was a neighborly forbearance on the part of the Owenses. The Owenses rely on Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 180-81, 14 N.W.2d 482, 486 (1944), which holds that the reviewing court should use common sense in determining whether a specific use is hostile. In Romans, the court noted that simple neighborly forbearances of the use of property would not make such a use hostile because then every adjoining landowner would gain adverse rights.