adverse possession claim in Minnesota

2026To succeed on an adverse-possession claim, a plaintiff must prove, “by clear and convincing evidence, an actual, open, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession for the requisite period of time which, under our statute, is 15 years.” Ehle v. Prosser, 197 N.W.2d 458, 462 (Minn. 1972); see also Minn. Stat. § 541.02 (2024) (providing that the statutory period is 15 years).

2015See Id. at 191 , 197 N.W.2d at 463 (stating that a claimant cannot succeed on an adverse possession claim if the use was permissive); Norgong v. Whitehead, 225 Minn. 379, 383 , 31 N.W.2d 267, 269 (1948) (stating that permissive use is contrary to hostile use).

2002Boldt, 618 N.W.2d at 396 ("A prescriptive easement claim involves the same elements of proof as an adverse possession claim, subject to the inherent differences between such claims.”); Rogers v. Moore, 603 N.W.2d 650, 657 (Minn.1999); Alstad, 228 Minn. at 311 , 37 N.W.2d at 375 (noting in dictum that a rebuttable presumption of hostility may aid an adverse-possession claimant unless the claimant is merely using the presumption to show actual or continuous use).

2000See Rogers v. Moore, 603 N.W.2d 650, 657 (Minn.1999).

2024See Costello v. Edson, 46 N.W. 299, 300 (Minn. 1890) (affirming adverse-possession finding because the adverse claimant’s use of a “wild and unoccupied” property, which included cutting timber and clearing brush, was constructive use).

2024Ganje v. Schuler, 659 N.W.2d 261, 266 (Minn. App. 2003) (quoting Ehle v. Prosser, 197 N.W.2d 458, 462 (Minn. 1972)).

2024Ganje v. Schuler, 659 N.W.2d 261, 266 (Minn. App. 2003) (quoting Ehle v. Prosser, 197 N.W.2d 458, 462 (Minn. 1972)).

2024A boundary-by-practical-location claim is closely related to an adverse-possession claim—each is a “title-transferring event that relies in substantial part on the deed holder’s conduct.” Gabler v. Fedoruk, 756 N.W.2d 725, 728-29 (Minn. App. 2008).

2024In Weis v. Kozak, which involved similar circumstances, we concluded that “an apparent 9 mutual grant of permission” defeated an adverse-possession claim. 410 N.W.2d 903, 906 (Minn. App. 1987).

2024There, a fence was built by agreement of two property owners to separate their adjacent lots and “prevent [the] mingling of cattle.” Id. at 905 .

2015While the possessor need not expressly convey hostile intentions to the record landowner in order for the use to be considered hostile, proof that the possession was hostile at its inception “must in all cases be clear and unequivocal.” Ebenhoh, 642 N.W.2d at 109 (quotation omitted). “[I]f the user was permissive in its inception, it must become adverse to the knowledge of the owner . . . before any . . . rights can arise.” Ehle, 293 Minn. at 191 , 197 N.W.2d at 463 . “[W]hen such original use was thus permissive it would be presumed to continue as permissive, rather than hostile, until the co

2015See Id. at 191 , 197 N.W.2d at 463 (stating that a claimant cannot succeed on an adverse possession claim if the use was permissive); Norgong v. Whitehead, 225 Minn. 379, 383 , 31 N.W.2d 267, 269 (1948) (stating that permissive use is contrary to hostile use).

2015See Id. at 191 , 197 N.W.2d at 463 (stating that a claimant cannot succeed on an adverse possession claim if the use was permissive); Norgong v. Whitehead, 225 Minn. 379, 383 , 31 N.W.2d 267, 269 (1948) (stating that permissive use is contrary to hostile use).

2012See SSM Invs. v. Siemers, 291 N.W.2d 383, 384 (Minn.1980) (identifying five factors a person must establish to acquire title by adverse possession: “actual, open, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession” for 15 years).

2010See Township of Sterling v. Griffin, 309 Minn. 230, 236 , 244 N.W.2d 129, 133 (1976).

2010See Township of Sterling v. Griffin, 309 Minn. 230, 236 , 244 N.W.2d 129, 133 (1976).

2010Barfnecht v. Town Bd. of Hollywood Twp., 304 Minn. 505, 505 , 232 N.W.2d 420, 422 (1975).

2010Barfnecht v. Town Bd. of Hollywood Twp., 304 Minn. 505, 505 , 232 N.W.2d 420, 422 (1975).

2002Boldt, 618 N.W.2d at 396 ("A prescriptive easement claim involves the same elements of proof as an adverse possession claim, subject to the inherent differences between such claims.”); Rogers v. Moore, 603 N.W.2d 650, 657 (Minn.1999); Alstad, 228 Minn. at 311 , 37 N.W.2d at 375 (noting in dictum that a rebuttable presumption of hostility may aid an adverse-possession claimant unless the claimant is merely using the presumption to show actual or continuous use).

2002Boldt, 618 N.W.2d at 396 ("A prescriptive easement claim involves the same elements of proof as an adverse possession claim, subject to the inherent differences between such claims.”); Rogers v. Moore, 603 N.W.2d 650, 657 (Minn.1999); Alstad, 228 Minn. at 311 , 37 N.W.2d at 375 (noting in dictum that a rebuttable presumption of hostility may aid an adverse-possession claimant unless the claimant is merely using the presumption to show actual or continuous use).

2002Boldt, 618 N.W.2d at 396 ("A prescriptive easement claim involves the same elements of proof as an adverse possession claim, subject to the inherent differences between such claims.”); Rogers v. Moore, 603 N.W.2d 650, 657 (Minn.1999); Alstad, 228 Minn. at 311 , 37 N.W.2d at 375 (noting in dictum that a rebuttable presumption of hostility may aid an adverse-possession claimant unless the claimant is merely using the presumption to show actual or continuous use).

1995See Fischer v. City of Sauk Rapids , 325 N.W.2d 816 , 819 (Minn. 1982) (citing Minn. Stat. § 541.01 (1980)).