adverse possession doctrine in Oklahoma

2014No. 2 of Beckham County, 1952 OK 381, ¶ 9 , 249 P.2d at 1009 2 ; Town of Chouteau, 1944 OK 275, ¶ 0 (4), 152 P.2d 379 . 3 ¶ 10 So, as long as real property is impressed with, held for or dedicated to a valid public use by a public trust or political subdivision, a claim of prescriptive title will not lie, but when such public use is abandoned in the manner required by law, there is no bar to an adverse possession claim.

2014No. 2 of Beckham County, 1952 OK 381, ¶ 9 , 249 P.2d at 1009 2 ; Town of Chouteau, 1944 OK 275, ¶ 0 (4), 152 P.2d 379 . 3 ¶ 10 So, as long as real property is impressed with, held for or dedicated to a valid public use by a public trust or political subdivision, a claim of prescriptive title will not lie, but when such public use is abandoned in the manner required by law, there is no bar to an adverse possession claim.

2011No Material Facts Remain in Dispute ¶ 16 The elements of an adverse possession claim are actual, adverse, open, notorious, peaceable, exclusive and hostile possession for a period of fifteen years Tindle v. Lin-ville, 1973 OK 64 , ¶ 8, 512 P.2d 176, 178 .

2011Hernandez v. Reed, 2010 OK CIV APP 65, ¶ 7 , O.S.2001 § 93(4). 17 It is clear that the Windebanks held the 29 acres for more than 15 years and that the Flaggs are the subsequent owners.

2011See also Leach v. West, 1972 OK 162 , 504 P.2d 1233 (fact that adverse claimant was mistaken as to the true boundary line and was not aware he was encroaching on lands owned by others did not preclude claimant from acquiring the disputed tract by prescription if, under claim of right, he occupied the tract openly, peaceably and exclusively for more than 15 years); Hammer v. Bell, 1964 OK 57 , 390 P.2d 492 (if occupancy of premises beyond its true boundary line is actual, open, visible, notorious, continuous and hostile, it may be "adverse" although occupants may have been unaware, or under mis

2011See also Leach v. West, 1972 OK 162 , 504 P.2d 1233 (fact that adverse claimant was mistaken as to the true boundary line and was not aware he was encroaching on lands owned by others did not preclude claimant from acquiring the disputed tract by prescription if, under claim of right, he occupied the tract openly, peaceably and exclusively for more than 15 years); Hammer v. Bell, 1964 OK 57 , 390 P.2d 492 (if occupancy of premises beyond its true boundary line is actual, open, visible, notorious, continuous and hostile, it may be "adverse" although occupants may have been unaware, or under mis

2007In the former case, the element of hostihty, necessary for an adverse possession claim, is not required. 2 Id.

2000"Where there is a severance of the mineral estate from the surface estate the owner of the minerals does not lose his right or his possession by any length of non-user (sic). . .." Hassell v. Texaco, Inc., 1962 OK 136 , 372 P.2d 233, 235 .

2000"Where there is a severance of the mineral estate from the surface estate the owner of the minerals does not lose his right or his possession by any length of non-user (sic). . .." Hassell v. Texaco, Inc., 1962 OK 136 , 372 P.2d 233, 235 .

1968In Herbert v. Forman, 198 Okl. 637 , 181 P.2d 257 , we held: “The acceptance and continued use of land for school purposes under oral permission from the owner, and followed by occupancy of the land for more than forty years, does not, under the doctrine of adverse possession, afford the school district a title by prescription to mineral interest in the land such as may be conveyed by the school district.” *286 And in Irion v. Nelson, 207 Okl. 243 , 249 P.2d 107, 108 , we stated: “A mere permissive use of a way over the land of another, however long indulged in, will not ripen into an easement

1968In Herbert v. Forman, 198 Okl. 637 , 181 P.2d 257 , we held: “The acceptance and continued use of land for school purposes under oral permission from the owner, and followed by occupancy of the land for more than forty years, does not, under the doctrine of adverse possession, afford the school district a title by prescription to mineral interest in the land such as may be conveyed by the school district.” *286 And in Irion v. Nelson, 207 Okl. 243 , 249 P.2d 107, 108 , we stated: “A mere permissive use of a way over the land of another, however long indulged in, will not ripen into an easement

1968In Herbert v. Forman, 198 Okl. 637 , 181 P.2d 257 , we held: “The acceptance and continued use of land for school purposes under oral permission from the owner, and followed by occupancy of the land for more than forty years, does not, under the doctrine of adverse possession, afford the school district a title by prescription to mineral interest in the land such as may be conveyed by the school district.” *286 And in Irion v. Nelson, 207 Okl. 243 , 249 P.2d 107, 108 , we stated: “A mere permissive use of a way over the land of another, however long indulged in, will not ripen into an easement

1968In Herbert v. Forman, 198 Okl. 637 , 181 P.2d 257 , we held: “The acceptance and continued use of land for school purposes under oral permission from the owner, and followed by occupancy of the land for more than forty years, does not, under the doctrine of adverse possession, afford the school district a title by prescription to mineral interest in the land such as may be conveyed by the school district.” *286 And in Irion v. Nelson, 207 Okl. 243 , 249 P.2d 107, 108 , we stated: “A mere permissive use of a way over the land of another, however long indulged in, will not ripen into an easement

1968In Herbert v. Forman, 198 Okl. 637 , 181 P.2d 257 , we held: “The acceptance and continued use of land for school purposes under oral permission from the owner, and followed by occupancy of the land for more than forty years, does not, under the doctrine of adverse possession, afford the school district a title by prescription to mineral interest in the land such as may be conveyed by the school district.” *286 And in Irion v. Nelson, 207 Okl. 243 , 249 P.2d 107, 108 , we stated: “A mere permissive use of a way over the land of another, however long indulged in, will not ripen into an easement

1968In Herbert v. Forman, 198 Okl. 637 , 181 P.2d 257 , we held: “The acceptance and continued use of land for school purposes under oral permission from the owner, and followed by occupancy of the land for more than forty years, does not, under the doctrine of adverse possession, afford the school district a title by prescription to mineral interest in the land such as may be conveyed by the school district.” *286 And in Irion v. Nelson, 207 Okl. 243 , 249 P.2d 107, 108 , we stated: “A mere permissive use of a way over the land of another, however long indulged in, will not ripen into an easement

1968In Herbert v. Forman, 198 Okl. 637 , 181 P.2d 257 , we held: “The acceptance and continued use of land for school purposes under oral permission from the owner, and followed by occupancy of the land for more than forty years, does not, under the doctrine of adverse possession, afford the school district a title by prescription to mineral interest in the land such as may be conveyed by the school district.” *286 And in Irion v. Nelson, 207 Okl. 243 , 249 P.2d 107, 108 , we stated: “A mere permissive use of a way over the land of another, however long indulged in, will not ripen into an easement

1968In Herbert v. Forman, 198 Okl. 637 , 181 P.2d 257 , we held: “The acceptance and continued use of land for school purposes under oral permission from the owner, and followed by occupancy of the land for more than forty years, does not, under the doctrine of adverse possession, afford the school district a title by prescription to mineral interest in the land such as may be conveyed by the school district.” *286 And in Irion v. Nelson, 207 Okl. 243 , 249 P.2d 107, 108 , we stated: “A mere permissive use of a way over the land of another, however long indulged in, will not ripen into an easement

1968In Herbert v. Forman, 198 Okl. 637 , 181 P.2d 257 , we held: “The acceptance and continued use of land for school purposes under oral permission from the owner, and followed by occupancy of the land for more than forty years, does not, under the doctrine of adverse possession, afford the school district a title by prescription to mineral interest in the land such as may be conveyed by the school district.” *286 And in Irion v. Nelson, 207 Okl. 243 , 249 P.2d 107, 108 , we stated: “A mere permissive use of a way over the land of another, however long indulged in, will not ripen into an easement

1944Co., 187 Okla. 661 , 105 P. 2d 541 , for a statement of those elements), the doctrine of adverse possession does not apply to property held by a municipality in trust for the public. 3.

1944Co., 187 Okla. 661 , 105 P. 2d 541 , for a statement of those elements), the doctrine of adverse possession does not apply to property held by a municipality in trust for the public. 3.

1935That legal conclusion of the trial court in the former trial was erroneous, and it was reversed in the opinion of this court reported in 146 Okla. 291 , 294 P. 187 ; this court holding that the prior possession of Brann and Butte could be, and should be so tacked to the possession of the defendants Harris', and that the aggregate adverse possession up to the commencement of the action might be relied upon by the defendants Harris to bar the action.

1935That legal conclusion of the trial court in the former trial was erroneous, and it was reversed in the opinion of this court reported in 146 Okla. 291 , 294 P. 187 ; this court holding that the prior possession of Brann and Butte could be, and should be so tacked to the possession of the defendants Harris', and that the aggregate adverse possession up to the commencement of the action might be relied upon by the defendants Harris to bar the action.

1924This court had before it the question of acts and c< nduct which are sufficient to constitute adverse possession, and the degree of proof which plaintiff must .show in .order to come within the doctrine of adverse possession in Fleher v. Callahan et al., 32 Okla. 283 , 122 Pac. 489 .

1924This court had before it the question of acts and c< nduct which are sufficient to constitute adverse possession, and the degree of proof which plaintiff must .show in .order to come within the doctrine of adverse possession in Fleher v. Callahan et al., 32 Okla. 283 , 122 Pac. 489 .