Adverse Possession:

(1) Van Valkenburgh: AP doctrine requires that possession be open and notorious, and if
AP not under color of title, possession. Open and notorious when land is 1) substantially
enclosed or 2) cultivated and improved.
a. Holds: Lutz’s AP claim fails because he only cultivated a small portion of land
and rotated the area where he cultivated the garden. The cultivation wasn’t
enough to put owner on notice.
b. Whole point of the cultivation requirement = to put true owner on notice
c. If Lutz was AP-ing under color of title, Lutz wouldn’t need to prove occupation
of the whole parcel of land.
(2) Tubolino v. Drake: If AP possesses color of title, AP can prove sufficient
cultivation/improvement if AP can show he occupied premises in a way consistent with
use by a regular owner.
a. With color of title to justify occupation, laws more lenient regarding sufficient
cultivation than if without color of title. AP just have to prove that he occupied in
a way that is consistent with use by an ordinary owner.
(3) Mannillo v. Gorski: Minor encroachments do not give rise to the presumption that AP’s
possession was open and notorious, and that the owner had notice of the adverse
occupancy. With minor encroachments, since possession isn’t enough to satisfy O&N
requirement, AP must prove the owner had notice.
a. Facts: D changed house’s steps and in doing so, created a minor 15 inch
encroachment onto P’s land. D contends she acquired title to these 15 inches via
AP. P contends there was no AP because D’s possession didn’t have the requisite
hostility.
b. Court held that such minor encroachments didn’t give rise to presumption that
owner must have had knowledge of the adverse occupancy because this creates
the presumption in cases of encroachments that owner must constantly monitor.
(4) West v. Tilley: State of mind should be irrelevant to determining hostility. Court
shouldn’t consider AP’s SOM in assessing whether AP established hostile claim of
title—there is hostile claim of title if AP’s actions meet all statutory requirements, and
are measures that an owner would ordinarily take. Mistaken belief that AP was occupying
his own land doesn’t negate the required hostility.
a. AP had planted shrubs and built a partial shuffleboard & cement wall on disputed
premises under belief she was enclosing her own property
(5) City of Tonowanda v. Ellicot Creek: Hostility is generally presumed once the other AP
requirements are proven. Burden shifts to the original owner to rebut/disprove
presumption of hostility. May rebut by showing:
a. AP asked for permission OR
b. Acknowledgement of the true owner’s title during the statutory period
(6) Walling v. Przyblo: State of mind irrelevant to determining hostility.
Conduct > knowledge.