Laserfiche WebLink
<br />200709070 <br /> <br />purchased his property in 1999 until the fall of 2004 when the city located the boundary <br /> <br /> <br />and staked it for the first time, that plaintiff believed the disputed property was owned by <br /> <br /> <br />defendant. In fact, in 2000, plaintiff constructed a boundary fence upon the west side of <br /> <br /> <br />the disputed property, which is defendant's claimed boundary. In his deposition plaintiff <br /> <br />acknowledged that he located the fence on what he thought was the boundary between the <br /> <br />properties. <br /> <br />Defendant purchased his property from Viola Walker. An affidavit of Walker's <br /> <br />daughter, Carolyn Powers, indicates that Powers is familiar with the property and that for <br /> <br />the years from 1945 through 1999 her parents and the adjacent property owner (plaintiffs <br /> <br />predecessor) acknowledged and accepted the midpoint of the vacant land between the two <br /> <br />residences as the accepted boundary, with her parents in possession of the disputed <br /> <br />property which they continuously possessed, mowed, watered and cared for, for many <br /> <br />years. The affidavit of William Lennox, a prior neighbor, confirms that from 1992 <br /> <br />through 1999, he mowed and watered the disputed property for Viola Walker. <br /> <br />It is clear that for the requisite 10 years, the defendant or his predecessors in title <br /> <br />were in open, continuous, notorious, exclusive and adverse possession of the disputed <br /> <br />property. <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br />IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF TIDS COURT that the defendant's <br />Motion for Summary Judgment should be, and hereby is, granted on Plaintiffs Complaint <br /> <br />3 <br />