Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom, 799 P.2d 304 (Alaska 1990).
MATTHEWS, Chief Justice.
This appeal involves a dispute over a tract of land [authorityoriented几亩地] measuring approximately ven and one-half acres, overlooking the Nome River…. Record title [analystemptations契约] … is held by Nome 2000.
On July 24, 1987, Nome 2000 filed suit to eject Charles and Peggy Fagerstrom from the disputed parcel. The Fagerstroms counterclaimed that through their u of the parcel [田产] they had acquired title [所有权] by adver posssion.
A jury trial ensued and… Nome 2000 moved [请求] for a directed verdict [法官判决因为对方不能赢] on two grounds. First, it maintained that the Fagerstroms' evidence of u of the disputed parcel did not meet the requirements of the doctrine of adver posssion. Alternatively, Nome 2000 maintained that the requirements for adver posssion were m
et only as to the northerly ction of the parcel and, therefore, the Fagerstroms could not have acquired title to the remainder [剩余的田产]. The trial court denied the motion. After Nome 2000 prented its ca, the jury found that the Fagerstroms had adverly possd the entire parcel….
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
…During the warmer asons, [the] property is suitable for homesites [房子] and subsistence [谋生手] and recreational [娱乐的] activities. During the colder asons, little or no u is made of [the] property….
In 1963, Charles and Peggy Fagerstrom were married and, in 1966, they brought a small quantity of building materials to the north end of the disputed parcel. They intended to build a cabin [木屋]rhone.
In 1970 or 1971, the Fagerstroms ud four cornerposts to stake off a twelve acre, rectan
gular parcel for purpos of a Native Allotment application [印第安人的风俗表示所有权]. [The posts marked the parcel].
Also around 1970, the Fagerstroms built a picnic area on the north end of the disputed parcel. The area included a gravel pit, beachwood blocks as chairs, firewood and a 50-gallon barrel for u as a stove.
About mid-July 1974, the Fagerstroms placed a camper trailer [野营车] on the north end of the disputed parcel…. Thereafter, until 1978, the Fagerstroms parked their camper trailer on the north end of the disputed parcel from early June through September….
About the same time that the Fagerstroms began parking the trailer on the disputed parcel, they built an outhou [外面的厕所] and a fish rack [拦鱼栅] on the north end of the parcel. Both fixtures [跟土地有永久联系的东西] remained through the time of trial in their original locations….
很快英文
During the summer of 1977, the Fagerstroms built a reindeer… pen [驯鹿的篱笆] which was 75 feet in diameter and 5 feet high. The… pen houd a reindeer for about six weeks and… remained in place until the summer of 1978.
During their testimony, the Fagerstroms estimated that they were personally prent on the disputed parcel from 1974 through 1978, “every other weekend or so” and “[a] couple times during the week . . . if the weather was good….”
[Paths on the property] were free for u by others in connection with picking berries dk是什么[莓] and fishing. On one occasion, however, Charles Fagerstrom excluded campers [野营的人] from the land. They were burning the Fagerstroms' firewood.
Nome 2000 placed into evidence the deposition testimony [宣誓作证证言] of Dr. Steven McNabb, an expert in anthropology [人类学], who stated that the Fagerstroms' u of the disputed parcel was consistent with the traditional Native Alaskan [爱斯基摩人] system of
land u… not recognize[ing] exclusive ownership of land. Instead, customary [风俗的] u of land, such as the Fagerstroms' u… establishes only a… claim [认领] to the land's resources….
During the summer of 1978, the Fagerstroms put a cabin on the north end of the disputed parcel. Nome 2000 admits that from the time that the cabin was so placed until the time that Nome 2000 filed this suit, the Fagerstroms adverly possd the north end of the disputed parcel. Nome 2000 filed its complaint on July 24, 1987.
II. DISCUSSION
A.
The Fagerstroms' claim of title by adver posssion is governed by Alaska Statute ction 09.10.030, which provides for a ten-year limitations period for actions to recover real property. Thus, if the Fagerstroms adverly possd the disputed parcel, or any
portion thereof, for ten concutive years, then they have acquired title to that property. . . . bigotedBecau the Fagerstroms' u of the parcel incread over the years, and becau Nome 2000 filed its complaint on July 24, 1987, the relevant period is July 24, 1977 through July 24, 1987….
“In order to acquire title by adver posssion, the claimant must prove, by clear and that for the statutory period ‘his u of the land was continuous, open and notorious, exclusive and hostile to the true owner.’” [反占有的因素] Smith v. Krebs, . . . The first three conditions-continuity, notoriety and exclusivity-describe the physical requirements of the doctrine. . . . The fourth condition, hostility, is often imprecily described as the “intent” requirement. . . .
On appeal, Nome 2000 argues that as a matter of law the physical requirements are not met abnt “significant physical improvements” or “substantial activity” on the land. Thus, according to Nome 2000, only when the Fagerstroms placed a cabin on the disputed parc
el in the summer of 1978 did their posssion become adver. For the prior year, so the argument goes, the Fagerstroms' physical u of the property was insufficient becau they did not construct “significant structure[s]” and their u was only asonal. Nome 2000 also argues that the Fagerstroms' u of the disputed parcel was not exclusive becau “[o]thers were free to pick the berries, u the paths and fish in the area.” We reject the arguments. [争论的意思是被告的行为不够的证明主人的行为].
Whether a claimant's physical acts upon the land are sufficiently continuous, notorious and exclusive does not necessarily depend on the existence of significant improvements, substantial activity or absolute exclusivity. [T]watch your backhe conditions of continuity and exclusivity require only that the land be ud for the statutory period as an average owner of similar property would u it. . . .[法官回答是主人行为要看土地的性格].
Applying the foregoing principles to this ca, we hold that the jury could reasonably conclude that the Fagerstroms established, by clear and convincing evidence, continuous,
notorious and exclusive posssion for ten years prior to the date Nome 2000 filed suit. We point out that we are concerned only with the first year, the summer of 1977 through the summer of 1978, as Nome 2000 admits that the requirements of adver posssion were met from the summer of 1978 through the summer of 1987.gpi是什么意思
The disputed parcel is located in a rural area suitable as a asonal homesite for subsistence and recreational activities. This is exactly how the Fagerstroms ud it during the year in question. On the premis throughout the entire year were an outhou, a fish rack, a large reindeer pen (which, for six weeks, houd a reindeer), a picnic area, a small quantity of building materials…. During the warmer ason, for about 13 weeks, the Fagerstroms also placed a camper trailer on blocks on the disputed parcel. The Fagerstroms and their children visited the property veral times during the warmer ason to fish, gather berries, clean the premis, and play. In total, their conduct and improvements went well beyond “mere casual and occasional trespass” and instead “evince[d] a purpo to exerci exclusive dominion over the property.” . . . That others w
ere free to pick berries and fish is consistent with the conduct of a hospitable landowner, and undermines neither the continuity nor exclusivity of their posssion. . . . [在阿拉斯加的乡下被告的行为好像一个主人].
With respect to the notoriety requirement, a quick investigation of the premis, especially during the ason which it was best suited for u, would have been sufficient to place a reasonably diligent landowner on notice that someone may have [occupied] at least the northern portion of the property…. Continuous, exclusive, and notorious posssion were thus established.
Nome 2000 also argues that the Fagerstroms did not establish hostility…. According to Nome 2000, this intent was lacking as the Fagerstroms thought of themlves not as owners but as stewards pursuant to the traditional system of Native Alaskan land usage. We reject this argument and hold that all of the elements of adver posssion were met.
随着时间的流逝What the Fagerstroms believed or intended has nothing to do with the question whether their posssion was hostile. . . . Hostility is instead determined by application of an objective test which simply asks whether the posssor “acted toward the land as if he owned it,” without the permission of one with legal authority to give posssion. . . . As indicated, the Fagerstroms' actions toward the property were consistent with ownership of it, and Nome 2000 offers no proof that the Fagerstroms so acted with anyone's permission….
Having concluded that the Fagerstroms established the elements of adver posssion, we turn to the question… whether the jury could reasonably conclude that the Fagerstroms adverly possd the southerly portion of the disputed parcel….
Here, from the summer of 1977 through the summer of 1978, the Fagerstroms' only activity on the southerly portion of the land included u of the pre-existing trails in conne
ction with subsistence and recreational activities, and picking up litter. They claim that the activities, together with their placement of the cornerposts, constituted actual posssion of the southerly portion of the parcel. Nome 2000 argues that this activity did not constitute actual posssion….
Nome 2000 is correct. The Fagerstroms' u of the trails and picking up of litter, although perhaps indicative of adver u, would not provide the reasonably diligent owner with visible evidence of another's exerci of dominion and control. To this, the cornerposts add virtually nothing…. [W]e fail to e how two posts on a rectangular parcel of property can, as the Fagerstroms put it, constitute “[t]he objective act of taking physical posssion” of the parcel. The two posts simply do not rve to mark off the boundaries of the disputed parcel and, therefore, do not evince an exerci of dominion and control over the entire parcel. Thus, we conclude that the superior court erred in its denial of Nome 2000's motion for a directed verdict as to the southerly portion….
