hostility requirement in North Carolina

2011Hostility With respect to “hostility,” this Court has explained: The hostility requirement “does not import ill will or animosity but only that the one in possession of the lands claims the exclu *32 sive right thereto.” State v. Brooks, 275 N.C. 175, 180 , 166 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1969). “ ‘A “hostile” use is simply a use of such nature and exercised under such circumstances as to manifest and give notice that the use is being made under claim of right.’ ” Daniel v. Wray, 158 N.C.

2008The hostility requirement "does not import ill will or animosity but only that the one in possession of the lands claims the exclusive right thereto." State v. Brooks, 275 N.C. 175, 180 , 166 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1969). "`A "hostile" use is simply a use of such nature and exercised under such circumstances as to manifest and give notice that the use is being made under claim of right.'" Daniel v. Wray, 158 N.C.App. 161, 172 , 580 S.E.2d 711, 719 (2003) (quoting Dulin v. Faires, 266 N.C. 257, 261 , 145 S.E.2d 873, 875 (1966)).

2011Hostility With respect to “hostility,” this Court has explained: The hostility requirement “does not import ill will or animosity but only that the one in possession of the lands claims the exclu *32 sive right thereto.” State v. Brooks, 275 N.C. 175, 180 , 166 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1969). “ ‘A “hostile” use is simply a use of such nature and exercised under such circumstances as to manifest and give notice that the use is being made under claim of right.’ ” Daniel v. Wray, 158 N.C.

2011Hostility With respect to “hostility,” this Court has explained: The hostility requirement “does not import ill will or animosity but only that the one in possession of the lands claims the exclu *32 sive right thereto.” State v. Brooks, 275 N.C. 175, 180 , 166 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1969). “ ‘A “hostile” use is simply a use of such nature and exercised under such circumstances as to manifest and give notice that the use is being made under claim of right.’ ” Daniel v. Wray, 158 N.C.

2008The hostility requirement "does not import ill will or animosity but only that the one in possession of the lands claims the exclusive right thereto." State v. Brooks, 275 N.C. 175, 180 , 166 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1969). "`A "hostile" use is simply a use of such nature and exercised under such circumstances as to manifest and give notice that the use is being made under claim of right.'" Daniel v. Wray, 158 N.C.App. 161, 172 , 580 S.E.2d 711, 719 (2003) (quoting Dulin v. Faires, 266 N.C. 257, 261 , 145 S.E.2d 873, 875 (1966)).

2008The hostility requirement "does not import ill will or animosity but only that the one in possession of the lands claims the exclusive right thereto." State v. Brooks, 275 N.C. 175, 180 , 166 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1969). "`A "hostile" use is simply a use of such nature and exercised under such circumstances as to manifest and give notice that the use is being made under claim of right.'" Daniel v. Wray, 158 N.C.App. 161, 172 , 580 S.E.2d 711, 719 (2003) (quoting Dulin v. Faires, 266 N.C. 257, 261 , 145 S.E.2d 873, 875 (1966)).

2011See, e.g., New Covenant Worship Ctr. v. Wright, 166 N.C.

2008See, e.g., New Covenant Worship Ctr. v. Wright, 166 N.C.App. 96, 104 , 601 S.E.2d 245, 251-52 (2004) (finding hostility requirement not satisfied because the possessor's use of the disputed property was permissive); McManus v. Kluttz, 165 N.C.App. 564, 573-74 , 599 S.E.2d 438, 446 (2004) (finding hostility requirement satisfied because the possessor's use of the disputed property was not permissive).

2008The hostility element may be satisfied by a showing that "a landowner, acting under a mistake as to the true boundary between his property and that of another, takes possession of the land believing it to be his own and claims title thereto[.]" Walls v. Grohman, 315 N.C. 239, 249 , 337 S.E.2d 556, 562 (1985).

2008The hostility element may be satisfied by a showing that "a landowner, acting under a mistake as to the true boundary between his property and that of another, takes possession of the land believing it to be his own and claims title thereto[.]" Walls v. Grohman, 315 N.C. 239, 249 , 337 S.E.2d 556, 562 (1985).

2008See, e.g., McManus, 165 N.C.App. at 573 , 599 S.E.2d at 445 (stating that "[p]ossession is open and notorious if it places the true owner on notice of an adverse claim"); Daniel, 158 N.C.App. at 172 , 580 S.E.2d at 719 (stating that to meet the hostility requirement, the possessor's use of the property must be "`of such nature and exercised under such circumstances as to manifest and give notice that the use is being made under claim of right'" (quoting Dulin, 266 N.C. at 261 , 145 S.E.2d at 875 )).

2008See, e.g., McManus, 165 N.C.App. at 573 , 599 S.E.2d at 445 (stating that "[p]ossession is open and notorious if it places the true owner on notice of an adverse claim"); Daniel, 158 N.C.App. at 172 , 580 S.E.2d at 719 (stating that to meet the hostility requirement, the possessor's use of the property must be "`of such nature and exercised under such circumstances as to manifest and give notice that the use is being made under claim of right'" (quoting Dulin, 266 N.C. at 261 , 145 S.E.2d at 875 )).