## Facts

- Louise J. Galiher, as trustee, purchased Lot 23 in the High Country subdivision (Teton County, Wyoming) in 2013.
- Dennis and Vicki Johnson owned and lived on neighboring Lot 21 and had used a corner area that was later determined to lie within Lot 23 since at least the mid-1980s.
- The Johnsons used the disputed area for parking, storage, and other residential/yard-type activities, treating it as part of their property for decades while Lot 23 passed through multiple owners.
- After obtaining a survey, Galiher learned the Johnsons’ long-used area fell within Lot 23 and demanded they remove their property.
- In a phone call, Dennis Johnson stated prior owners had given him permission and asked to continue; Galiher refused and set a deadline to remove items.
- In a later call, Dennis Johnson stated he would not remove his property because he had a “right to be there.”
- Galiher sued to quiet title, asserting permissive use; the Johnsons counterclaimed for adverse possession.
- After a first trial and appeal, the case was remanded for consideration of the totality of the evidence, including Johnson’s statements about permission.
- On remand, the district court found Johnson’s “permission” statement was not credible (and made to avoid trespass liability) and again quieted title to the disputed area in the Johnsons by adverse possession.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s challenged factual findings on remand were clearly erroneous and contrary to the weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the Johnsons failed to establish adverse possession because Dennis Johnson’s statements indicated their use was permissive and not under a “claim of right” (hostile).
3. Whether the district court erred by declining to treat the Johnsons’ use as permissive “neighborly accommodation” rather than adverse possession.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the judgment quieting title in the Johnsons.
- The court held the district court’s findings were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.
- The court concluded the Johnsons proved the elements of adverse possession, including hostility/claim of right, based on the totality of circumstances and longstanding conduct.
- The court held the district court permissibly rejected “neighborly accommodation” because the evidence did not establish an actual permissive arrangement.

## Legal Principles

- Adverse possession requires actual, open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, and hostile possession (under a claim of right) for the statutory period.
- “Hostile” does not require animus; it means possession inconsistent with and in denial of the record owner’s rights.
- A prima facie showing of visible, exclusive, continuous use for the statutory period shifts the burden to the record owner to prove the use was permissive.
- In a bench trial, appellate review of fact-finding is for clear error; appellate courts do not reweigh evidence and defer to credibility determinations.
- Hostility/claim of right is evaluated from the totality of the possessor’s objective conduct over time; later statements suggesting permission may be discounted if the fact-finder reasonably deems them unreliable or self-serving.
- Permissive use (including true “neighborly accommodation”) defeats hostility, but the record owner bears the burden to prove permission once a prima facie adverse-possession case is established.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed quiet title for the Johnsons because decades of open, exclusive, continuous residential use established adverse possession, and the trial court reasonably found that later claims of “permission” did not prove permissive use or negate a claim of right.


Galiher v. Johnson, 432 P.3d 502 (Wyo. 2018)