Hardt v. Eskam

• Decision Date: 27 July 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-012,83-012
• Citation: 352 N.W.2d 583,218 Neb. 81
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
• Parties: Elizabeth M. HARDT et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. Ernest ESKAM et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees.

Page 583

352 N.W.2d 583

218 Neb. 81

Elizabeth M. HARDT et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. Ernest ESKAM et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees.

No. 83-012.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

July 27, 1984.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Adverse Possession. Title to real estate by adverse possession cannot be acquired without the simultaneous and continuous existence of each element of adverse possession for a period of 10 years.

2. Words and Phrases. Continuous means uninterrupted, or stretching on without break or interruption.

3. Adverse Possession. Generally, seasonal and recreational use, and therefore, occasional use, even if occurring annually, cannot ripen into title for the real estate on which such recreation takes place.

4. Adverse Possession. Intermittent use by the adverse claimant, not inconsistent with and excluding the predominant and most suitable use of a disputed tract, cannot be the foundation for ownership by adverse possession.

Holtorf, Kovarik, Nuttleman, Ellison, Mathis & Javoronok, P.C., Gering, for appellants and cross-appellees.

Brenner & Meister Law Office, Gering, for appellees and cross-appellants.

KRIVOSHA, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, HASTINGS, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, and GRANT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Elizabeth and Donald Hardt filed suit to quiet title to river land. Hardts also sought damages for trespass by Eskams on the disputed tract. Eskams answered and counterclaimed for quiet title to the disputed tract. The district court found in favor of the Hardts. Eskams appeal and Hardts cross-appeal. We reverse and remand for dismissal.

As background, the parties by their pleadings have referred to the disputed tract as "Blackacre," and for brevity we shall adopt that usage rather than the lengthy legal description for the disputed tract. Also, although the trial court decided adversely to Eskams on their counterclaim, Eskams have not appealed that judgment. As assigned error, Eskams contend only that the district court was incorrect in finding for Hardts on the issue of adverse possession.

An action to quiet title is an equitable action, and it is the duty of this court to try the issues of fact de novo on the record and to reach an independent conclusion without reference to the findings of the district court. Pettis v. Lozier, 217 Neb. 191, 349 N.W.2d 372 (1984); Weiss v. Meyer, 208 Neb. 429, 303 N.W.2d 765 (1981).

Blackacre, the disputed tract, contains 14.99 acres of alluvion in the North Platte River within Scotts Bluff County. Blackacre is suitable for hunting, fishing, and livestock pasture the year around. Hardt personally hunted on the tract from 1940 until the early 1970s and eventually leased hunting rights on the tract to hunters, who built duckblinds on Blackacre. Hardt, as a youngster, had herded his family's sheep on Blackacre. However, Hardt made no use of Blackacre for livestock purposes from 1949 until 1965, when Hardt's cattle grazed on the tract.

Hardt did not recall the specific years his cattle grazed Blackacre, and he admitted that grazing was intermittent until 1978. Hardt testified he tried to conserve grass on Blackacre for use as winter pasture and last had calving operations on the tract in 1976. Hardt also acknowledged there were years when he did not have livestock on the tract. Hardt had no records regarding the presence or absence of his cattle in the use of the disputed tract.

The burden is on one who claims title by adverse possession to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he has been in actual, continuous, exclusive, notorious, and adverse possession under claim of ownership for the statutory period, namely, 10 years. See, Hutson v. The Rush Creek Land and Livestock Co., 206 Neb. 658, 294 N.W.2d 374 (1980); Weiss v. Meyer, supra. Title to real estate by adverse possession cannot be acquired without the simultaneous and continuous existence of each element of adverse possession for a period of 10 years. Continuous means "uninterrupted ... stretching on without break or interruption." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged 493-94 (1968). The law does not require the possession shall be evidenced by persons remaining continuously upon the land and constantly from day to day performing acts of ownership thereon. It is sufficient if the land is used continuously for the purposes to which it may be naturally adapted. See Weiss v. Meyer, supra; accord Walker v. Bell, 154 Neb. 221, 47 N.W.2d 504 (1951). Hardt's alleged possession of Blackacre through his livestock operations does not fulfill the requirement of continuous use for the statutory period of 10 years.

Turning to hunting on Blackacre as a factor in determining whether Hardts' adverse possession exists, the evidence shows that the primary hunting activity related to waterfowl, especially duck hunting, although there was some hunting of upland birds and deer on the tract. Hunting being seasonal, the recreational use of Blackacre was, at best, occasional and limited to a few weeks or months of each year.

In Knight v. Denman, 64 Neb. 814, 819, 90 N.W. 863, 865 (1902):

"Every disseisin is a trespass. But every trespass is not a disseisin. A wrongful intention to oust the real owner must clearly appear in order to raise an act, which may be only a trespass, to the bad eminence of a disseisin." 4 Kent, Commentaries (12th ed.), 535. There must be adverse possession, and, where the acts relied on by the claimant are equally consistent with mere trespasses, it is...