60-503. Adverse possession. No action shall be maintained against any person for the recovery of real property who has been in open, exclusive and continuous possession of such real property, either under a claim knowingly adverse or under a belief of ownership, for a period of fifteen (15) years. This section shall not apply to any action commenced within one (1) year after the effective date of this act.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-503; January 1, 1964.
Source or prior law:
G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 16; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 15; R.S. 1923, 60-304 (4 th clause).
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Highlights of the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure (1963)," Spencer A. Gard, 2 W.L.J. 199, 202 (1962).
Survey of law of real property and future interests, James K. Logan, 12 K.L.R. 305, 306 (1963).
"Inchoate Dower and the Marketable Title," David K. Fromme, 4 W.L.J. 240, 249 (1965).
1963-65 survey of real and personal property law, John William Strong, 14 K.L.R. 341, 349 (1965).
Comment on creditor's remedies under civil procedure code in case of fraudulent conveyance, Charles L. Frickey, 17 K.L.R. 501, 506, 510 (1969).
Comment discussing adverse possession by life tenant's grantee claiming title over remainderman, 13 W.L.J. 157, 158, 159, 160 (1974).
Survey of property law, Mark Corder and William J. Paprota, 15 W.L.J. 387 (1976).
Operation and effect of recording statutes, 17 W.L.J. 615, 622 (1978).
"Researching Legislative Intent," Fritz Snyder, 51 J.K.B.A. 93, 95, 97 (1982).
"Survey on Kansas Easements Law," R. Scott Shackelford, 62 J.K.B.A. No. 2, 24, 27 (1993).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Action to enforce lien for unredeemed real estate bid in by county; conveyance of land sold for taxes; adverse possession claim on property. 95-25.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-304 (4 th clause) and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. Applied in quiet title action. Martin v. Martin, 200 Kan. 60, 62, 434 P.2d 833.
2. Defense of adverse possession considered in quiet title action. Beams v. Werth, 200 Kan. 532, 549, 556, 438 P.2d 957.
3. Prior law applied; adverse possession must import a denial of owner's title and an appropriation of the land by the occupant for his own use. Aguilera v. Corkill, 201 Kan. 33, 39, 439 P.2d 93.
4. Finding of open, exclusive and continuous possession of disputed tract of land upheld. Walton v. Unified School District, 203 Kan. 415, 417, 454 P.2d 469.
5. Section changed prior statutory and common law doctrines; claim hereunder may be based on "belief of ownership" in lieu of an adverse or hostile holding. Stark v. Stanhope, 206 Kan. 428, 432, 433, 480 P.2d 72.
6. Whether title acquired by adverse possession is a question of fact; title of accretion follows title to riparian land attached thereto whether the latter title was acquired by deed or adverse possession. Rieke v. Olander, 207 Kan. 510, 511, 485 P.2d 1335.
7. Adverse possession does not commence until the base term of mineral interest has expired and no minerals are produced. Smith v. Home Royalty Association, Inc., 209 Kan. 609, 614, 498 P.2d 98.
8. Record supports finding of good faith belief in ownership; prescriptive easement acquired barring inverse condemnation. Armstrong v. Cities Service Gas Co., 210 Kan. 298, 305, 307, 312, 313, 315, 320, 321, 322, 323, 326, 502 P.2d 672.
9. On facts of case neither laches nor adverse possession available as a defense to a quiet title action. Becker v. Rolle, 211 Kan. 769, 772, 508 P.2d 509.
10. Cited in case determining effect of changes in watercourse on boundary lines. Schaake v. McGrew, et al., 211 Kan. 842, 844, 508 P.2d 930.
11. Cited; finding that party was in open, exclusive and continuous possession for over fifteen years upheld. Morehead v. Parks, 213 Kan. 806, 808, 809, 810, 518 P.2d 544.
12. Construed and applied; possessor satisfied requirements; ownership confirmed without regard to remaindermen. Wallace v. Magie, 214 Kan. 481, 482, 486, 487, 522 P.2d 989.
13. Evidence established mutual agreement as to boundary line followed by possession; no alteration by later survey. Moore v. Bayless, 215 Kan. 297, 302, 524 P.2d 721.
14. Evidence failed to establish open possession within meaning of section; failure to resolve value of improvements error. Renensland v. Ellenberger, 1 Kan. App. 2d 659, 660, 662, 664, 574 P.2d 217.
15. Mentioned in appeal from quiet title judgment; effects of accretion and avulsion on ownership of riverbed of navigable rivers. Murray v. State, 226 Kan. 26, 33, 596 P.2d 805.
16. Cited in upholding trial court's finding of no open, exclusive and continuous possession of property under belief of ownership. Stith v. Williams, 227 Kan. 32, 35, 36, 37, 605 P.2d 86.
17. The burden of proving prescriptive use is by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence; the statue on adverse possession is used as a basis for evaluating claims of prescriptive easements. Allingham v. Nelson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 294, 298, 299, 627 P.2d 1179.
18. Adverse possession applies only to realty; royalty interest is personal property. Stratman v. Stratman, 6 Kan. App. 2d 403, 408, 628 P.2d 1080 (1981).
19. Statute of limitations had run as to claims of half-breed Indians to quiet title against owners of former half-breed lands. Dennison v. Topeka Chambers Industrial Development Corporation, 527 F. Supp. 611, 623 (1981).
20. Treaty of 1825 between U.S. and Kaw half-breeds superseded by various federal acts. Dennison v. Topeka Chambers Indus. Development Corp., 724 F.2d 869, 870 (1983).
21. Cited; use of property by title holder not adverse to railroad's easement rights cannot extinguish easement. Miller v. St. Louis, Southwestern Ry. Co., 239 Kan. 198, 201, 718 P.2d 610 (1986).
22. Underground storage of gas does not meet requirements for adverse possession. Union Gas System, Inc. v. Carnahan, 245 Kan. 80, 774 P.2d 962 (1989).
23. Prerequisite for establishing public prescriptive right to use of nonnavigable stream running through private land examined. State ex rel. Meek v. Hays, 246 Kan. 99, 107, 785 P.2d 1356 (1990).
24. Rights of pipeline easement grantee over one seeking adverse possession through constructing buildings on easement examined. Mid-America Pipeline Co. v. Wietharn, 246 Kan. 238, 248, 787 P.2d 716 (1990).
25. Possession of minerals alone by one cotenant as insufficient to give title by adverse possession against cotenant examined. Kneller v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, 247 Kan. 399, 404, 799 P.2d 485 (1990).
26. Cited in opinion certifying to U.S. district court that K.S.A. 60-507 is statute of limitations applicable to inverse condemnation proceedings. Hiji v. City of Garnett, 248 Kan. 1, 4, 804 P.2d 950 (1991).
27. Proof of exclusive use for 15-year period in adverse possession dispute examined. Barrett v. Ninnescah Bow Hunters Ass'n, 15 Kan. App. 2d 241, 248, 806 P.2d 485 (1991).
28. Good faith but erroneous belief of ownership for 15 or more years not impeached by subsequent knowledge of true boundary line. Akers v. Allaire, 17 Kan. App. 2d 556, 559, 840 P.2d 547 (1992).
29. Insufficient evidence presented to prove easement by prescription. Brady Fluid Svc., Inc. v. Jordan, 25 Kan. App. 2d 788, 794, 972 P.2d 787 (1998).
30. Conveyance of real property by cotenant to grantee purporting to pass entire title to grantee, followed by grantee's actual, open and exclusive possession amounts to ouster of any other cotenant. Buchanan v. Rediger, 26 Kan. App. 2d 59, 66, 975 P.2d 1235 (1999).
31. Prescriptive easement found in public using road for over 15 years. Stramel v. Bishop, 28 Kan. App. 2d 262, 15 P.3d 368 (2000).
32. Use of land was incidental and permissive and did not amount to adverse possession. Thompson v. Hilltop Lodge, Inc., 34 Kan. App. 2d 908, 126 P.3d 441 (2006).
33. Cited; K.S.A. 60-503 discussed and applied; county acquired property by adverse possession. Chesbro v. Board of Douglas County Comm'rs, 39 Kan. App. 2d 954, 956, 960, 964, 186 P.3d 829 (2008).
34. Trial court upheld in determination of adverse possession of property. Rucker Properties, L.L.C. v. Friday, 41 Kan. App. 2d 664, 204 P.3d 671 (2009).
35. Constructive notice does not prevent a possessor of land from claiming a good-faith belief of ownership. Wright v. Sourk, 45 Kan. App. 2d 860, 258 P.3d 981 (2011).
36. In action to quiet title by adverse possession, annual or occasional entries to unenclosed land to cut hay were insufficient to warn legal owner that person cutting hay did so under a claim of right or title. Crone v. Nuss, 46 Kan. App. 2d 436, 263 P.3d 809 (2011).
37. Adverse possessor failed to establish that possession of disputed land was exclusive, thereby preventing claim to quiet title by adverse possession. Crone v. Nuss, 46 Kan. App. 2d 436, 263 P.3d 809 (2011).
38. Easement by prescription failed where owner allowed other parties access and no "exclusive use" existed. Koch v. Packard, 48 Kan. App. 2d 281, 294 P.3d 338 (2012).
39. Continued possession by a grantor of title to real property is presumed to not be adverse to a grantee; presumption can be rebutted if grantor "explicitly renounces" the grantee's title. Ruhland v. Elliot, 302 Kan. 405, 413-14, 353 P.3d 1124 (2015).
40. Absent an ouster or other notice, a co-tenant may not obtain ownership of another co-tenant's property by adverse possession. Oxy USA, Inc. v. Red Wing Oil, 51 Kan. App. 2d 1028, 1036, 360 P.3d 457 (2015).
41. The exclusivity elements of adverse possession and prescriptive easements are distinguishable. Pyle v. Gall, 317 Kan. 499, 508, 531 P.3d 1189 (2023).
|
|