Atkins v. Reagan, 48371

• Decision Date: 17 November 1953
• Docket Number: No. 48371,48371
• Parties: ATKINS v. REAGAN et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 790

60 N.W.2d 790

244 Iowa 1387

ATKINS v. REAGAN et al.

No. 48371.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 17, 1953.

Vincent E. Johnson, Montezuma, for appellant.

Louden & Manly, Grinnell, for appellees.

MULRONEY, Justice.

This is a boundary dispute between owners of adjoining residences in Grinnell presented by the quieting title petition of the plaintiff, and the counterclaim of the defendants. The counterclaim admits defendants' house on the north side extends 10 feet north of the north line of their property, as that property is described in their deed, and therefore occupies the south 10 feet of plaintiff's lot. The counterclaim alleges defendants have title to said 10 feet by adverse possession, acquiescence, and estoppel, and prayed for a quieting title decree in their favor as to the 10-foot strip.

At the conclusion of the trial the court held for defendants on the ground of adverse possession, fixing the boundary between the lots along the north wall of defendants' house which extends over upon the property described in plaintiff's deed, a distance of 9 3/10 feet. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff had lived in her house for 22 years, part of the time as a tenant, and she acquired title by warranty deed July 2, 1937. The house located on the lot to the south had stood in its present position since 1897. Plaintiff testified: 'I purchased knowing there was something wrong out there but not giving it any serious thought.' Defendants purchased their lot by deed from the board of supervisors April 4, 1939 and immediately improved the house by a new roof, new siding, new floors, new electric wiring, new plumbing, new furnace and other improvements, all at a cost of $3,500. Much of the improvement was to that portion of the house that extended 9 3/10 feet over the lot line. These improvements were all made with the knowledge of plaintiff. She testified her driveway on the south side of her house was full of building materials when the improvements were being made and that the workmen used her water. The record shows defendants shoveled the snow and cut the grass up to plaintiff's driveway.

It is established without serious dispute that plaintiff knew defendants' house extended over her south lot line, from at least the date defendants moved into their house, if not before. In addition to her own testimony that she knew 'something was wrong out there' when she purchased, there is the testimony of her neighbor on the north, Gladys Wisecarver, who said plaintiff told her she had known about this boundary line dispute ever since defendants had moved into their house but she had not done anything about it because 'she said she didn't like trouble.' This testimony was undenied. In a letter written by plaintiff concerning this boundary trouble there is the statement: 'I have known all through the years what my rights constitute * * *. I purchased first and kept still.' Much of plaintiff's evidence consisted of the efforts she made over the years to have the city deed all or a portion of a 17-foot strip of land that the city owned which was adjacent to her lot on the north. She testified she sought this strip so she could give defendants a deed to the south 9 or 10 feet of her lot and 'straighten out' the matter. This excellent solution failed though the record shows the council members considered the...