Morris v. Kanne

"Adverse possession depends on the intent of the occupant to claim and hold real property in opposition to all the world." Sertic v. Roberts, 171 Or 121, 134, 136 P2d 248 (1943).

Plaintiffs appealed a general judgment in a property dispute.  Plaintiffs assigned error to (1) the trial court's granting of summary judgment to defendants on a claim of adverse possession and denial of a cross-motion for summary judgment on the same claim, (2) to the trial court's awarding defendants an enhanced prevailing party fee and attorney fees.  Plaintiffs argued that there was sufficient evidence of hostility through the "pure mistake" doctrine which would not require an inquiry into subjective intent to possess the property as the true owner.  The "pure mistake" doctrine was not "a basis to reverse the trial court's ruling however because the argument was not raised during the summary judgment proceedings."  "Adverse possession depends on the intent of the occupant to claim and hold real property in opposition to all the world." Sertic v. Roberts, 171 Or 121, 134, 136 P2d 248 (1943). The Court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment because the plaintiffs' conduct would not lead an objectively reasonable juror to find that they intended to claim the strip of land against defendants' interests as the true owners for the requisite period and found that the trial court neglected to explain the reasons for the enhanced prevailing party fee or the attorney fees.  Award of enhanced prevailing party fee under ORS 20.190(3) and award of attorney fees under ORS 20.105(1) vacated and remanded; otherwise affirmed.