Mannillo v. Gorski, 54 N.J. 378 (1969) p138.

adverse possession without intent

• in 1946 D purchased property
• P owned the adjoining parcel which was purchased in 1953
• In the summer of 1946 D’s son made certain additions to the house.
• he extended two rooms, enclosed a screened porch , put a concrete platform with steps on the west side
• in 1953 D raised the house. In order to compensate for the added height the steps were extended
• the extension of the steps encroached on P’s land.

Trial court concluded that defendant had clearly and convincingly proved that her possession of the 15-inch encroachment had existed for more than 20 years. D’s claim was denied and a judgement for the P was entered.

Must a claim of adverse possession be accompanies be an intention to invade the rights of another in the lands, i.e., a knowing wrongful taking?

Does entry on a mistaken belief constitute adverse possession?

1. Did the true owner have actual knowledge of the encroachment?
2. If not, should P should be obliged to convey the disputed tract to D?
3. If the answer to the last question is yes, what consideration should be paid for the conveyance?

Minor encroachments, even if the encroacher did not realize it, can be adverse possession. The true owner should be paid for the encroached land.

1. Any entry and possession for the required time which is exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, visible and notorious, even though under the mistaken claim of title, is sufficient to support a claim of title by adverse possession.
2. No presumption of knowledge arises from a minor encroachment along a common boundary.
3. True owner may be forced to convey the land so occupied upon payment of the fair value thereof without regard to whether the true owner had notice of the encroachment at its inception.

1. Whether or not the entry is caused by mistake or intent, the same result eventuates – the true owner is ousted from possession.
2. True owner cannot be required to be on constant lookout for possible small encroachments.
3. impractical to require trespasser to remove property when there is a minor encroachment, so just have person pay for that small amount of property. Only should be done when no serious samage would be done to the remaining land.