Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 5-207 (2026)
Possession under written claim of title.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Possession under written claim of title.
When it appears that the occupant, or those under whom he claims, entered into the possession of the property under claim of title, exclusive of other right, founding such claim upon a written instrument, as being a conveyance of the property in question, or upon the decree or judgment of a competent court, and that there has been a continued occupation and possession of the property included in such instrument, decree or judgment, or of some part of the property under such claim, for twenty (20) years, the property so included is deemed to have been held adversely except that when it consists of a tract divided into lots, the possession of one (1) lot is not deemed a possession of any other lot of the same tract.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1951–2023 · leading case: Pincock v. Pocatello Gold & Copper Mining Co., 597 P.2d 211 (Idaho 1979).
Pincock v. Pocatello Gold & Copper Mining Co., 597 P.2d 211 (Idaho 1979). “They claimed ownership on the basis of the decree of final distribution on Eldredge’s estate or, in the alternative, adverse possession either upon a written claim under I.C. § 5-207 or upon an oral claim under I.”
Kennedy v. Schneider, 259 P.3d 586 (Idaho 2011). “Idaho Code § 5-207 provides as follows: When it appears that the occupant, or those under whom he claims, entered into the possession of the property under claim of title, exclusive of other right, founding such claim upon a written instrument, as being a conveyance of the…”
Owen v. Boydstun, 624 P.2d 413 (Idaho 1981). “Finally, appellants allege that the trial court erred in failing to consider and make findings upon the issue of whether there was adverse possession of the disputed property pursuant to I.C. §§ 5-207 and 5-208 which provide for a claim founded upon a written claim of title.”
Rice v. Hill City Stock Yards Co., 826 P.2d 1288 (Idaho 1992). “Neither I.C. §§ 5-207 or 5-208, which are at issue in this case, state that payment of taxes is required to gain title to property by adverse possession.”
Stout v. Westover, 681 P.2d 1008 (Idaho 1984). “Stout had established adverse possession under I.C. § 5-207 as to property which was not included in the written instrument upon which the claim of title was founded.”
East Lizard Butte Water Corp. v. Howell, 837 P.2d 805 (Idaho 1992). “Section 6 of the Protective Covenants states: Water is to be supplied through a system operated by a nonprofit cooperative water association, which shall maintain and operate various wells in the subdivision.”
DeChambeau v. Est. of Smith, 976 P.2d 922 (Idaho 1999). “I.C. § 5-207. This Court has set forth six requirements that a party must meet to establish adverse possession based upon a written claim of title: (1) that they entered into possession, as that term is defined by I.”
Standall v. Teater, 525 P.2d 347 (Idaho 1974). “On the basis of the findings of fact, the trial court concluded that the Teaters failed to establish their claim to adverse possession under a written instrument (I.C. §§ 5-207, 5-208), or under an oral claim of title (I.”
Gage v. Davis, 655 P.2d 942 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). “Despite the cross-appeal it appears that the Davises actually seek affirmance of the district court’s decree in their favor.”
Cluff v. Bonner Cnty., 824 P.2d 115 (Idaho 1992). “*187 The trial court also premised its summary judgment on the fact that Cluff had neither a claim of title based upon a written instrument pursuant to I.C. §§ 5-207 and 5-208, nor an oral claim of title pursuant to I.”
Paurley v. Harris, 268 P.2d 351 (Idaho 1954). “considerable period of time to be estopped, and what has been said of acquiescence by the seller is not to be construed as a holding that such acquiescence alone for the period involved would be sufficient to establish title by “acquiescence”, but that the seller’s acquiescence…”
Persyn v. Favreau, 804 P.2d 327 (Idaho Ct. App. 1990). “” I.C. § 5-207; I.C. § 5-208. “[Hjowever inadequate [such a conveyance may be] to carry the true title to such property, and however incompetent might have been the power of the grantor in such conveyance to pass a title to the subject thereof, yet a claim asserted under the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.