Kline v. Kramer

• Decision Date: 19 March 1979
• Docket Number: No. 3-877,3-877
• Citation: 179 Ind.App. 592,386 N.E.2d 982
• Parties: Adrian KLINE and Reta Kline, Appellants-Defendants, v. F. Richard KRAMER and June Kramer, Appellees-Plaintiffs. A 197.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 982

386 N.E.2d 982

179 Ind.App. 592

Adrian KLINE and Reta Kline, Appellants-Defendants, v. F. Richard KRAMER and June Kramer, Appellees-Plaintiffs.

No. 3-877 A 197.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District.

March 19, 1979.

David V. Bent and William T. Means, Bingham, Loughlin, Means & Mick, Mishawaka, for appellants-defendants.

F. Richard Kramer and Douglas B. Altman, South Bend, for appellees-plaintiffs.

STATON, Judge.

This case involves a classic boundary line dispute between neighbors. The Kramers and Klines, adjoining landowners, filed their respective complaint and counterclaim to quiet title to the disputed stretch of land, an area approximately one (1) to four (4) feet wide and three hundred and nine (309) feet long. The Klines bring this appeal from the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Kramers.

The disputed stretch of land forms the northern boundary of the Kramer property and the southern boundary of the Kline property. Both parties claim title to the land through their predecessors-in-interest. The Klines, who acquired ownership of their property in 1972, base their claim to the disputed stretch of land on the legal description contained in their deed. The Kramers, who purchased their land in 1968, claim title to the disputed stretch of land on the theory of adverse possession. The Kramers assert that the twenty-year ¹ period of possession necessary to establish adverse possession was satisfied by tacking the period of possession by the previous owners of his property, Harry and Hazel Britt.

Harry Britt testified at the hearing on Kramer's motion for summary judgment that when he purchased the present-day Kramer property in 1947, a fence existed along the northern boundary of the land. Britt maintained the fence during his period of ownership. Photographs of the fence-line were introduced into evidence at the hearing in which Britt identified old fence posts he had set in maintaining the existing fence and familiar trees which had grown in the fence-line during his tenure on the land. While Britt testified that he never contemplated that he was claiming land that belonged to his neighbor, the fence in fact described a line which ran roughly one to four feet north of and parallel to the legally-described northern boundary of his property.

Britt testified that he felt that he owned the property up to the fence line and that he used it to plant crops and pasture cattle. It was his belief that he had bought "what was inside the fence." Similarly, Britt stated that when he sold the land to the Kramers in 1968 he intended to convey to them all the land enclosed by the fence.

F. Richard Kramer testified that he believed that he had purchased the property up to the fence that ran along the northern edge of his acreage. In 1972, Kramer inadvertently allowed his tractor to roll through the fence, tearing out a middle portion of it. Kramer repaired the break in the fence by stretching new fencing between the remaining old fence and fence posts to the east and west of the break. This new portion of the fence was set in the exact location of the old fence, according to Kramer, who noted that the new section followed a trail which cattle had worn along the old section.

Kramer concluded his testimony by stating that he had made improvements which encroached on the disputed stretch of land, that he had no knowledge of the true boundary line until Kline had conducted a survey of the land, and that he had paid taxes on his property according to the tax receipts sent to him by the County Treasurer.

Based on these facts, as well as the affidavits on file, the trial court granted the Kramers' motion for summary judgment, finding that they had acquired title to the disputed stretch of land through adverse possession. The Klines contend that summary judgment is erroneous for the following reasons:

(1) Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed.

(2) The court erred in refusing to invoke equitable estoppel to bar the equitable relief (quiet title) sought by Kramer.

(3) The court erred in its finding that the Kramers had acquired title to the disputed strip by adverse possession because it was not shown that the possession of their predecessors-in-interest (Britts) was adverse, hostile, and with intent to claim title.

(4) The trial court's conclusion that the Kramers adversely possessed the property was erroneous because the Kramers did not satisfy the statutory requisite that taxes be paid on land in order to acquire title through adverse possession.

(5) The court erred in granting summary judgment because it failed to designate those issues which it found undisputed.

We find no error, and we affirm.

I. Material Facts

The Klines contend that the trial court's entry of summary judgment was erroneous because the record reveals a genuine issue as to material facts. Specifically, the Klines maintain that a dispute as to two material facts rendered summary judgment inappropriate in this instance. Those disputes asserted by the Klines in support of their contention involve a question as to the exact location of both the fence and the legally-described boundary line, and a controversy regarding whether Kramer indicated to Kline the true location of the boundary line.

A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and testimony presented reveal no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 56(C); Union State Bank v. Williams (1976), Ind.App., 348 N.E.2d 683, 685. In determining whether a genuine issue as to a material fact exists, all doubts must be resolved against the movant. Id.

Assuming Arguendo that a genuine issue exists regarding the factual matters raised by the Klines, the resolution of those facts is not material to the disposition of this case. The trial court's entry of summary judgment was predicated on its conclusion that the Kramers had acquired title to the property through adverse possession. The ten year possessory period necessary to acquire title on that basis is a statute of limitations which runs against the titleholder. IC 1971, 34-1-2-2, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 2-602 (Burns Code Ed.). If the titleholder fails to oust the intruder within the ten year period, title to the property vests in the intruder, assuming all other elements of adverse possession are satisfied. Id.

Here, the evidence established that the fence had existed since 1947. The disputes which the Klines maintain render summary judgment inappropriate originated after the title to the property had vested in the Britts-Kramers. The alleged dispute regarding the location of the legally-described boundary line arose from surveys conducted by Kline in 1975. The controversy surrounding the location of the fence stems from the partial destruction of the fence in 1972 and its subsequent reconstruction in 1975. And the question whether Kramer acknowledged to Kline the true location of the boundary line flows from a 1972 incident.

By the earliest of these dates, 1972, title to the disputed strip of land had already vested in the Kramers. Finding no genuine issue as to any material fact, summary judgment was appropriate here.

II. Equitable Estoppel

The Klines maintain the trial court erred in refusing to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel to bar the equitable relief of quiet title sought by the Kramers. The Klines base this argument on a 1972 incident in which F. Richard Kramer allegedly indicated to them the location of surveyor's stakes defining the true boundary line of the properties. This acknowledgment, coupled with Kramer's silence as to his intention to claim title to the disputed stretch, constitutes a misrepresentation or concealment which should preclude the Kramers from obtaining quiet title relief, according to the Klines.

The doctrine of equitable estoppel is invoked when the following circumstances are present: (1) a false representation or concealment of material facts made with actual or constructive knowledge of the true state of facts; and (2) the representation is made to one who is without knowledge or reasonable means of knowing the true facts with the intent that he or she will rely upon it; and (3) the second party must rely or act upon such representation to his or her detriment. Sheraton Corp. of Am. v. Kingsford Packing Co., Inc. (1974), 162 Ind.App. 470, 476, 319 N.E.2d 852, 856. For silence to give rise to the application of the doctrine, there must not only be an opportunity to speak, but an imperative duty to do so. Erie-Haven, Inc. v. First Church of Christ (1973), 155 Ind.App. 283, 292, 292 N.E.2d 837, 842.

F. Richard Kramer's silence regarding his "intent" to claim title cannot trigger the application of equitable estoppel in these circumstances. The Kramers had already acquired title to the strip by virtue of adverse possession. Indiana courts have held that once title vests in a party at the conclusion of the ten year possessory period, the title is not lost, abandoned, or forfeited even though the party pays rent to the titleholder (Riggs v. Riley (1887), 113 Ind. 208, 15 N.E. 253), agrees to a survey to attempt to find the true boundary line (Fatic v. Myer (1904), 163 Ind. 401, 72 N.E. 142), expresses satisfaction with a survey whose results are inconsistent with the property adversely possessed by him (Grim v. Johns (1916), 61 Ind.App. 514, 112 N.E. 13), or by stating that he does not claim the land and offers to buy it (Rennert v. Shirk (1904), 163 Ind. 542, 72 N.E. 546).

Nor did the Klines reveal to the trial court the manner in which they relied on F. Richard Kramer's silence and acknowledgment of the surveyor's stakes. Adrian Kline's affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment merely stated he "did rely" on...