Also known as: open & notorious · open notorious possession
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Possession of land that is visible and obvious enough to put a reasonably attentive true owner on notice that someone is asserting a claim to the property.
WindCo installed an underground power cable along the edge of Lopez's ranch and marked the route with visible posts. Maintenance trucks used the gravel track regularly for fifteen years without permission. Lopez later blocked access. The visible markers and regular truck traffic satisfied the open and notorious element and supported WindCo's prescriptive easement claim.
Oakley Osei and his predecessors built a fence and planted crops on a strip they believed was theirs due to a survey error. The fence and crops remained visible to the true owner for the full statutory period. Seasonal farming consistent with the land's character met the open and notorious requirement and allowed tacking of successive periods.
Orson Ochoa and prior owners occupied a beach cabin only during summer months but maintained it openly each year. The cabin and cleared area were plainly visible to the record owner. The consistent seasonal pattern satisfied open and notorious possession and permitted tacking across generations under a good-faith boundary claim.
Land surveying errors led to a mismatch between deed descriptions and actual occupations on the shore of Hood Canal in Mason County. As long ago as 1932, McCall resided in the house now occupied by the Kuntos under a deed describing a 50-foot-wide parcel that was adjacent to the lot where the house stood. Several property owners to the west of defendants were similarly situated. Since 1946, several conveyances occurred using the same legal description accompanied by transfer of possession to succeeding occupants. The Kuntos' immediate predecessors, the Millers, had a survey performed to build a dock which indicated conformity between deed and occupation, leading to placement of boundary stakes and construction of improvements. The Kuntos took possession of the disputed property under a deed from the Millers in 1959. In 1960, the Howards, who held land east of the Kuntos, undertook a survey to convey an undivided one-half interest to the Yearlys. The survey revealed that the Howards were record owners of land occupied by the Moyers and the Moyers held record title to land occupied by the Kuntos. In April 1960, Howard obtained a conveyance from Moyer of the land upon which the Kunto house stood in exchange for conveying the land upon which the Moyer house stood. Until that conveyance, neither Moyer nor predecessors asserted any right to the property possessed by Kunto and predecessors. Plaintiffs instituted this action to quiet title on August 19, 1960, when defendants had been in occupancy of the disputed property less than a year. The trial court denied the Kuntos' claim of adverse possession, finding a lack of continuity of possession or estate to permit tacking and that defendants' possession was not continuous because it involved only summer occupancy. Defendants appealed from the decree quieting title in the plaintiffs.
View caseOctavia Okonkwo paved a driveway that extended several feet onto the neighboring lot. The paved surface and daily vehicle use remained in plain view for the statutory period. The visible improvement and regular traffic met the open and notorious element even though the true owner never inspected the boundary line.
Odette Orozco cleared and graveled a path across an adjoining parcel and used it daily for equipment transport. The improved surface and constant traffic were observable from the public road. The conspicuous physical changes satisfied open and notorious use and supported a prescriptive easement after the statutory period.
Odessa Okada erected a fence and stored equipment on a vacant lot owned by another party. The fence and daily activity remained visible to passersby and the record owner for more than the required period. The conspicuous enclosure and ongoing operations fulfilled the open and notorious requirement for adverse possession.
No. The requirement is satisfied if the acts are visible enough that a reasonably attentive owner would have noticed them. Constructive notice is sufficient. Actual knowledge is not required.
Acts that a usual owner would perform, such as building fences, planting crops, paving driveways, or maintaining visible structures, qualify. Underground or hidden uses generally fail unless surface evidence makes them discoverable.
Yes. Use that matches the ordinary character of the property, such as summer occupancy of a beach cabin or annual farming, satisfies the element when it is consistent and visible throughout the statutory period.
Yes. The same visibility standard governs both doctrines. A claimant must show use that is sufficiently apparent to put the servient owner on notice of the adverse claim.
…omitted): "The notion that an actual claim of right must exist rather than the claim by wrong demonstrated by the possessor's open and notorious acts of ownership has disappeared for the most part in the great majority of the states where boundary disputes are not involved but the notion lives on in a considerable number of…