PROPERTY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Melinda Xiong
In Park v. Brown, 549 P.3d 934 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that a homeowner’s continuous use of a sliver of her neighbors’ land, including mowing the grass, clearing brush, and planting a tree, constituted adverse possession. (Id. at 943–44). A woman owned a lot adjacent to a couple. (Id. at 937). In between the two lots stood a slightly askew fence that partially intruded onto the couple’s property, meaning the woman had effectively annexed a thin sliver of her neighbors’ land. (Id. at 937). When the couple discovered the intrusion, they sued to establish their ownership, but the woman responded that the doctrine of adverse possession allowed her to acquire title to the property. (Id. at 938). The superior court determined that the woman did not meet all the elements of adverse possession. (Id. at 939). The woman appealed, arguing that the superior court misapplied the law. (Id. at 937). The supreme court agreed with her, reasoning that the maintenance and improvement of the contested land for at least ten years, notably planting a tree that had grown to twenty feet, was sufficient to put her neighbors on notice of the existence of an adverse claimant. (Id. at 943–44). The court further articulated that although the woman herself did not maintain consecutive title or possession of the property for the required ten-year statutory period, she could tack her possession onto that of her ex-husband’s, who had previously owned the property, because privity existed between them. (Id. at 939–40). Reversing the superior court’s decision and remanding for entry of judgment in the woman’s favor, the supreme court held that because the woman had continuously used the land in a way that would put her neighbors on notice of an adverse claimant, she had satisfied all the elements of adverse possession. (Id. at 945–46).
