From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doan v. Bogart

Oregon Supreme Court
Jul 24, 1969
456 P.2d 1001 (Or. 1969)

Opinion

Argued June 4, 1969

Affirmed July 24, 1969

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.

GEORGE A. JONES, Judge.

John A. Bryan, Salem, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were DeArmond, Sherman Barber, Salem.

Otto R. Skopil, Jr., Salem, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Williams, Skopil, Miller Beck, Salem.

Before SLOAN, Presiding Justice, and O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and HOLMAN, Justices.

Denecke, J., did not participate in the decision of this case.


AFFIRMED.


This is a suit to enjoin defendants from using an easement. The easement was created by deed in 1954 for the purpose of permitting ingress and egress to property now owned by defendants. Plaintiffs' property is the servient estate. Plaintiffs' claim title to the property by adverse possession. The trial court agreed. Defendants Mason appeal.

There is no issue of law involved in the case. Decision requires an examination of the evidence to see if it meets the recognized tests for finding adverse possession. This case presents a classic example of such evidence.

Plaintiffs did deliberately occupy the disputed property by walls and other impediments which openly and notoriously precluded defendants' use of the property for more than the ten year prescriptive period.

The trial court could have reached no other conclusion. We affirm that plaintiffs have acquired title by adverse possession.


Summaries of

Doan v. Bogart

Oregon Supreme Court
Jul 24, 1969
456 P.2d 1001 (Or. 1969)
Case details for

Doan v. Bogart

Case Details

Full title:DOAN ET UX, Respondents, v. BOGART ET UX, Defendants, and MASON ET UX…

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: Jul 24, 1969

Citations

456 P.2d 1001 (Or. 1969)
456 P.2d 1001

Citing Cases

Slak v. Porter

Notice of the adverse possession may be actual or constructive. Corson v. Williford, supra, 44 Or App at 149.…

Mid-Valley Resources, Inc. v. Foxglove Properties, LLP

Slak , 128 Or.App. at 278–79, 875 P.2d 515. For example, we explained in Slak that the act of constructing a…