Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 5-209 (2026)
Possession under oral 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 oral claim of title.
Where it appears that there has been an actual continued occupation of land, under a claim of title, exclusive of any other right, but not founded upon a written instrument, judgment or decree, the land so actually occupied, and no other, is deemed to have been held adversely.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases, 1952–2004 · leading case: Owen v. Boydstun, 624 P.2d 413 (Idaho 1981).
Owen v. Boydstun, 624 P.2d 413 (Idaho 1981). “The central issue before the district court, as set out in its memorandum opinion, was whether the appellants’ use of the disputed property constituted compliance with the statutory requirements of I.C. §§ 5-209 and 5-210 to support a claim of adverse possession.”
East Lizard Butte Water Corp. v. Howell, 837 P.2d 805 (Idaho 1992). “Neither of these documents is a sufficient written instrument upon which a written claim to adverse possession can be based.”
Lisher v. Krasselt, 492 P.2d 52 (Idaho 1972). “I.C. § 5-209 provides that an oral claim to title shall be deemed adverse; 9 and this Court has applied that rule to claims under oral agreements reached by adjoining landowners who disputed, or were uncertain of, the true boundary.”
Berg v. Fairman, 690 P.2d 896 (Idaho 1984). “Fairman argues on appeal that her assertions of fact, if proved, would constitute a valid defense to the quiet title action of the Bergs upon the theory that *898 she or her predecessors have adversely possessed the 15-foot strip of land in question.”
Cluff v. Bonner Cnty., 895 P.2d 551 (Idaho 1995). “Leroy Maring never entered an appearance, but the County intervened as a defendant. After remand, Cluff attempted to prove to the trial court his entitlement to Lot 6 through adverse possession.”
Standall v. Teater, 525 P.2d 347 (Idaho 1974). “§§ 5-207, 5-208), or under an oral claim of title (I.C. §§ 5-209, 5-210), and entered judgment quieting title in favor of the Standals.”
Swanson v. State, 358 P.2d 387 (Idaho 1960). “They are I.C. § 5-209, which provides: "Where it appears that there has been an actual continued occupation of land, under a claim of title, exclusive of any other right, but not founded upon a written instrument, judgment or decree, the land so actually occupied, and no other,…”
Carney v. Heinson, 985 P.2d 1137 (Idaho 1999). “§§ 5-209 and 5-210, a claimant must show that there have been five years of continuous actual occupation, which occupation is defined as protection of the claimed property by a substantial enclosure and usual cultivation or improvement. Id. The claimant must also show that the…”
Shelton v. Boydstun Beach Ass'n, 641 P.2d 1005 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). “I In general, a party asserting adverse possession under an oral claim of title must prove by clear and satisfactory evidence that he or she has been in possession of the property for at least five years, and that the possession has been actual, open, visible, notorious,…”
Gameson v. Remer, 537 P.2d 631 (Idaho 1975). “Such right can only be established through specific disclaimer of the original permissive use, or other acts so notorious that notice will be presumed.”
Sinnett v. Werelus, 365 P.2d 952 (Idaho 1961). “2d 830 ; I.C. § 5-209. *523 One cannot acquire a prescriptive right in the property of another short of the period within which the statute of limitations will run.”
Cluff v. Bonner Cnty., 824 P.2d 115 (Idaho 1992). “§§ 5-207 and 5-208, nor an oral claim of title pursuant to I.C. §§ 5-209 and 5-210. The trial court was correct that Cluff had no claim based upon a written instrument.”
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.