## Facts

- A dispute arose over title to an approximately 44-acre undeveloped parcel near the Richardson Highway in Alaska.
- Both sides traced record title to a federal patentee who acquired the land in 1927.
- In 1939, the patentee quitclaimed the land to Charles E. Taylor; the land later passed to his widow, Eva Randall Taylor, who left Alaska in 1946, never returned, and died in 1971. Alaska National Bank administered her estate and claimed record title.
- In 1944, the patentee executed a second conveyance of the same parcel to James A. Stewart in exchange for payment to release a welfare lien and a promise to care for the patentee; Stewart registered his title in 1946 under then-territorial law.
- Stewart and his wife later died; their daughter, Alaska S. Linck, succeeded to their interest and sued to quiet title.
- There was no evidence the Taylors ever used or entered the land.
- Linck and her predecessors undertook acts on and concerning the property, including: planting a sizeable garden for two years (mid-1950s); erecting and maintaining a barricade to block access to a nearby camp; posting a no-hunting sign; refusing one proposed state easement and granting a power-line easement; and periodically visiting and maintaining the land.
- Linck’s side paid property taxes from 1949 to 1967; after a 1967 flood destroyed assessment records, the assessor listed Eva Taylor as owner and the Taylor estate/Bank paid taxes from 1968 to 1975, while Linck was unaware she had stopped paying taxes on that parcel.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for Linck, quieting title based on adverse possession under color of title; the Bank appealed, disputing only legal sufficiency, not the underlying facts.

## Issues

1. Whether the undisputed acts by Linck and her predecessors satisfied Alaska’s requirements for adverse possession under color of title for the statutory period.
2. Whether, given the land’s rural and undeveloped character, the asserted acts of dominion were sufficiently open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, and hostile to vest title to the entire 44-acre tract described in the color-of-title instrument.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper where the material facts were uncontested and only the legal effect of those facts was disputed.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment quieting title in Linck.
- The court held the undisputed facts established adverse possession under color of title.
- The court concluded Linck acquired title to the entire parcel described in the instrument, not merely the portion physically used.
- The court held summary judgment was appropriate because the Bank did not contest the operative facts and the facts met the legal standard as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Adverse possession under color of title requires possession that is actual (as the land reasonably permits), open and notorious, exclusive, continuous for the statutory period, and hostile (nonpermissive under a claim of right).
- The adequacy of acts showing possession is assessed in light of the character of the land and the conduct an ordinary owner of similar property in the community would undertake.
- When possession is held under color of title to a described tract, actual possession of part of the tract, coupled with acts of dominion consistent with ownership, can mature into title to the entire described tract.
- Tax payment history is relevant evidence of a claimant’s asserted ownership, but it is evaluated alongside physical and transactional acts of dominion and the competing owner’s absence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a quiet-title judgment for Linck, holding that consistent acts of dominion suitable to rural, undeveloped land—performed under color of title and without factual dispute—were legally sufficient to establish adverse possession of the entire 44-acre parcel and warranted summary judgment.


Alaska Nat’l Bank v. Linck, 559 P.2d 1049 (Alaska 1977)