Holmes v. Harlan

Opinio’1

.ara Holmes and defendant Speckman ,c to a certain parcel of real property in *

r& & ./-foot strip of real property lying between plaintiffs ’ <y. Plaintiffs purchased an approximately three acre This fcP, and deft parcel of k v defendant Speckman in 1976. In conversations prior to the sale, Mrs. Sp man told plaintiffs that a certain fence constituted the property line and that, in her opinion, a bam was part of the property. Plaintiffs used the bam and road, planted a garden and installed a septic tank and trailer on the disputed strip.

Mrs. Speckman testified that she purchased the property in March 1975 and sold it to plaintiffs in June 1976. During the time she owned her parcel she used the barn, planted a garden and spread rocks within the disputed strip.

[212]Robert Thompson, Speckman’s predecessor in interest, purchased the land in 1969 and sold it to Mrs. Speckman in 1975. He used the road and bam as well as planted a garden on the portion of property here in question. He later rebuilt the bam in the same place where the old one had been located.

Steven Johnson, Thompson’s predecessor in interest, purchased the tract in 1961. At the time he purchased the property, the fence and bam were located on it. His tenants used the roadway between the tree arbor located on the 39-foot strip.

Marvin Carpenter, chief appraiser for the assessor’s office of Lake County, testified that taxes for the disputed strip of land had been paid by the defendants and their predecessors in interest. The taxes were for land without any improvements.

Plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest assumed that they owned the land up to the fence which included the 39-foot strip. Since at least 1955, portions of a fence ran along the south boundary of plaintiff’s parcel. The fence did not enclose the property due to several 20 to 30 foot gaps. Nor could it restrain animals.

Defendants Harlan purchased their property in 1976. The deed to the property includes the strip here in dispute and they have paid all taxes levied against their entire parcel. Defendants did not see the fence nor enter upon the property during the time of their ownership although Burton Harlan had seen the fence during the period in which his father owned the property. The parties never agreed that the fence fine was the boundary.