## Facts

- Cold Spring Tungsten, Inc. held record title to a tract of real property in Boulder County, Colorado.
- In 1930, William J. Doherty purchased a cabin located on the tract from the Boulder Rotary Club and entered into possession.
- From 1930 through the lawsuit, Doherty and family members (including June B. Anderson and James A. Anderson) used the cabin on summer weekends and at times for a month or longer.
- The occupants made improvements, kept the cabin in repair, locked the door and shuttered windows when absent, and posted the property at times to warn off trespassers.
- They used adjacent land on one side of the cabin for toilet facilities and on the other side for trash and garbage disposal.
- Doherty paid the real estate taxes each year after entering the property.
- Cold Spring brought a quiet title action; the occupants counterclaimed to establish title by adverse possession to a portion of the tract.
- The trial court awarded the cabin to the occupants but denied adverse possession of any land and quieted title to the land in Cold Spring.

## Issues

1. Whether a “peaceable” original entry precludes the “hostile” possession required for adverse possession.
2. Whether long-term, recurring seasonal use of a recreational cabin, coupled with maintenance, exclusionary acts, and appurtenant land use, can constitute adverse possession of any disputed land.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the judgment quieting title in Cold Spring and denying the adverse-possession counterclaim.
- The court held the trial court erred by treating “peaceable” entry as inconsistent with hostility.
- The court also held the trial court erred by concluding the occupants’ use and occupation did not amount to adverse possession of any disputed property.

## Legal Principles

- “Hostility” in adverse possession does not require force or conflict; it requires possession under a claim of right inconsistent with the record owner’s title, even if the entry is peaceable.
- Actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and continuous possession may be shown by use consistent with the character of the property; seasonal occupancy can satisfy continuity for a vacation/recreational cabin.
- Improvements, maintenance, locking and shuttering during absences, posting to exclude others, functional use of nearby land (e.g., sanitation and refuse), and payment of taxes are evidence supporting adverse possession of the cabin site and appurtenant land.

## Conclusion

The court reversed because the trial court misapplied adverse-possession doctrine: peaceable entry does not negate hostility, and decades of seasonal but regular cabin occupancy with acts of control, exclusion, and tax payments could establish adverse possession of at least some of the land associated with the cabin.


Anderson v. Cold Spring Tungsten, Inc., 170 Colo. 7, 458 P.2d 756 (Colo. 1969)