Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Capps v. Abbottgreen1 sentence2019See Capps v. Abbott , 897 N.E.2d 984 , 989-90 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (affirming the trial court's prescriptive easement judgment for the claimants where the evidence showed that the claimants' and their predecessors in title's use of the drive of a neighboring landowner constituted an open and continuous use of the other's land with knowledge of that owner for the required twenty-year period). [34] The Hardins' argument regarding the tax payment requirement of adverse possession also fails. | 1 | 1 |
Jeffrey B. Morgan and Wendi S. Morgan v. Andrew White and Holly Whitegreen1 sentence2017See Tucker, 35 N.E.3d at 255 (observing the homeowners argued they and their predecessor paid all the taxes they reasonably believed in good faith to be due on the disputed real estate because they believed the disputed real estate to be part of the side yard of their lot, for which they actually paid taxes, and holding that “[t]his reasonable and good faith belief substantially complies with the statutory tax payment requirement”); Morgan, 56 N.E.3d at 115 (observing the parties treated the fence between their parcels as the boundary and affirming the trial court’s determination that the Whit | 1 | 1 |
Celebration Worship Center, Inc. v. Patrick Tucker and Carolyn P. Tucker, A/K/A Patty Tuckergreen1 sentence2017See Tucker, 35 N.E.3d at 255 (observing the homeowners argued they and their predecessor paid all the taxes they reasonably believed in good faith to be due on the disputed real estate because they believed the disputed real estate to be part of the side yard of their lot, for which they actually paid taxes, and holding that “[t]his reasonable and good faith belief substantially complies with the statutory tax payment requirement”); Morgan, 56 N.E.3d at 115 (observing the parties treated the fence between their parcels as the boundary and affirming the trial court’s determination that the Whit | 1 | 1 |
Dewart v. Haabgreen1 sentence2015See also Flick, 5 N.E.3d at 381 n. 7 (disagreeing with the adverse possession claimant’s contention that the tax payment requirement was inapplicable because the disputed land was part of a boundary dispute) (citing Dewart v. Haab, 849 N.E.2d 693, 696 (Ind.Ct.App.2006); Piles, 851 N.E.2d at 1014-15 ). [45] In Echterling , our Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the language of the original adverse possession tax statute 11 and the intention of the Legislature; 12 noted that “complete legal descriptions of real estate are not present on the tax duplicates issued by county or city treasurers” and tha | 1 | 1 |
Larry Edward Flick v. Jewell Reutergreen1 sentence2015See also Flick, 5 N.E.3d at 381 n. 7 (disagreeing with the adverse possession claimant’s contention that the tax payment requirement was inapplicable because the disputed land was part of a boundary dispute) (citing Dewart v. Haab, 849 N.E.2d 693, 696 (Ind.Ct.App.2006); Piles, 851 N.E.2d at 1014-15 ). [45] In Echterling , our Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the language of the original adverse possession tax statute 11 and the intention of the Legislature; 12 noted that “complete legal descriptions of real estate are not present on the tax duplicates issued by county or city treasurers” and tha | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Piles v. Gosman
green
1 sentence2015See also Flick, 5 N.E.3d at 381 n. 7 (disagreeing with the adverse possession claimant’s contention that the tax payment requirement was inapplicable because the disputed land was part of a boundary dispute) (citing Dewart v. Haab, 849 N.E.2d 693, 696 (Ind.Ct.App.2006); Piles, 851 N.E.2d at 1014-15 ). [45] In Echterling , our Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the language of the original adverse possession tax statute 11 and the intention of the Legislature; 12 noted that “complete legal descriptions of real estate are not present on the tax duplicates issued by county or city treasurers” and tha | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Echterling Et Ux. v. Kalvaitis Et Ux.
green
1 sentence2015Echterling, 126 N.E.2d at 575 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Fraley v. Minger
green
2 sentences2014While Ford and other cases provided a tax-payment exception for boundary-line disputes, that exception no longer exists: our Supreme Court’s 2005 opinion in Fraley held that Ford is no longer good law. 6 In Fraley , the Court stated that it would not permit “total disregard of the statutory tax payment requirement merely on grounds that the legal title holder has other clear notice of adverse possession.” 829 N.E.2d at 498 . 2014The Fraley Court held that substantial compliance may satisfy the requirement of tax payment “in boundary disputes where the adverse claimant has a reasonable and good faith belief that the claimant is paying the taxes during the period of adverse possession.” Id. at 493 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Berrey v. Jean
green
2 sentences1980At least with regard to Mrs. Eckert, Berrey v. Jean, supra, is clearly on point, in dealing with the tax payment requirement, because “[ijnasmuch as we have determined that notice is not in issue due to the property having passed to the cemetery prior to the acquisition by the Berreys, this eontention fails to constitute error.” 401 N.E.2d at 105 . 1980At least with regard to Mrs. Eckert, Berrey v. Jean, supra, is clearly on point, in dealing with the tax payment requirement, because “[ijnasmuch as we have determined that notice is not in issue due to the property having passed to the cemetery prior to the acquisition by the Berreys, this eontention fails to constitute error.” 401 N.E.2d at 105 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.