Echterling v. Kalvaitis, 29294
Decision Date | 18 May 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 29294,29294 |
Citation | 126 N.E.2d 573,235 Ind. 141 |
Parties | Waldemar E. ECHTERLING and Julia M. Echterling, his wife, Appellants. v. Frank KALVAITIS and Kazimeira Kalvaitis, his wife, Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Wm. L. Travis, Palmer C. Singleton, Jr., Hammond, Travis & Tinkham, Hammond, of counsel, for appellants.
Roberts & Roberts, Lowell, Hanley & Hanley, Rensselaer, for appellees.
This cause was submitted to this court on a petition to transfer from the Appellate Court, where the judgment of the trial court was reversed. Echterling v. Kalvaitis, Ind.App.1955, 123 N.E.2d 465.
The facts are set forth correctly in the opinion of the Appellate Court, supra, as follows:
The Appellate Court considered only the evidence of adverse possession from 1906 to 1927, because of the 1927 act, Acts 1927, ch. 42, § 1, p. 119, being § 3-1314, Burns' 1946 Replacement. This act provides as follows:
'Hereafter in any suit to establish title to lands or real estate no possession thereof shall be deemed adverse to the owner in such manner as to establish title or rights in and to such land or real estate unless such adverse possessor or claimant shall have paid and discharged all taxes and special assessments of every nature falling due on such land or real estate during the period he claims to have possessed the same adversely * * *.'
It becomes necessary, therefore, to consider the effect of the statute when applied to the facts before us. To do this, we must examine the language of the act and look to the intention of the Legislature in that enactment. Historically in Indiana, the adverse possessor's rights are acquired in twenty years under the statute of limitations, § 2-602, Sixth, Burns' 1946 Replacement (1953 Supp.). The 1927 act was enacted to halt the pernicious effect of squatters upon lands where title holders had paid taxes on lands owned by them, but where possession of parts of the land was usurped by squatters for long years without claim of title or payment of taxes. These squatters eventually claimed they became seized with title through adverse possession. Philbin v. Carr, 1921, 75 Ind. App. 560, 129 N.E. 19, 706.
Quoting from commentaries on the Public Acts of Indiana, 1927-II, the Adverse Possession Act, by G. A. Farabaugh and Walter R. Arnold, Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 113, 114:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mamula v. Ford Motor Co., 371A49
...similar to 'substantial', our attention has been directed to two cases which seemingly use the 'substantial' test. Echterling v. Kalvaitis (1955), 235 Ind. 141, 126 N.E.2d 573; McCague v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co. (1946), 225 Ind. 83, 71 N.E.2d 569, 73 N.E.2d 48. Echterling......
-
Fraley v. Minger
...tax statute.7 In the first case in which the adverse possession tax statute was actually analyzed by this Court, Echterling v. Kalvaitis, 235 Ind. 141, 126 N.E.2d 573 (Ind.1955), the statute was found not applicable. This decision undertook to "examine the language of the act and look to th......
-
Standall v. Teater
...the tax payment requirement of the Indiana statute. Nasser v. Stahl, 126 Ind.App. 709, 134 N.E.2d 567 (1956); Echterling v. Kalvaitis, 235 Ind. 141, 126 N.E.2d 573 (1955). Several Idaho cases have expressed approval of a similar theory. See White v. Boydstun, 91 Idaho 615, 622, 428 P.2d 747......
-
Scott v. Gubler, 11211
...the tax payment requirement of the Indiana statute. 3 Nasser v. Stahl, 126 Ind.App. 709, 134 N.E.2d 567 (1956); Echterling v. Kalvaitis, 235 Ind. 141, 126 N.E.2d 573 (1955). Several Idaho cases have expressed approval of a similar theory. See White v. Boydstun, 91 Idaho 615, 622, 428 P.2d 7......