## Facts

- Neighboring landowners held adjacent parcels in Pettibone, North Dakota: “Tract 1” (later owned by Lawson Geringer) and “Tract 2” (owned by Reinhold and Marion Gruebele).
- A garage was built in 1959–1960 by Tract 1’s owners and was later determined (in 1975) to sit on the boundary line between the two tracts.
- After the boundary-line location was discovered, Tract 2’s owners gave Tract 1’s owner permission to keep the garage where it was, and the neighbors shared use of the garage.
- The pattern of shared use continued through later transfers of Tract 1.
- The Gruebeles bought Tract 2 in 1994 and stored personal property in the garage.
- In 1996, Geringer purchased Tract 1; the Gruebeles told him the garage was on the property line and would have to be moved, and later demanded removal by letter in 1998.
- The Gruebeles sued to quiet title to the disputed strip of land under the garage; Geringer asserted adverse possession.
- After a bench trial, the district court quieted title in the Gruebeles, finding Geringer failed to prove adverse possession because use of the garage had been shared since 1975, defeating exclusivity and continuity.

## Issues

1. Whether Geringer proved adverse possession of the disputed strip of land, particularly the elements of exclusive and continuous possession, where the garage had long been used jointly and initially by permission.
2. Whether the district court’s factual findings rejecting adverse possession were clearly erroneous in a quiet title action.

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment quieting title in the Gruebeles.
- The court held the district court did not err in finding Geringer failed to establish adverse possession of the disputed property.
- The court applied a clearly erroneous standard to the district court’s findings of fact in the quiet title action.
- The court accepted the finding that shared, permissive use of the garage since 1975 defeated the required elements of exclusive and continuous possession for adverse possession.

## Legal Principles

- A party asserting adverse possession must prove the statutory elements, including possession that is exclusive and continuous for the required period.
- Possession that is shared with, or permissive from, the record owner is inconsistent with adverse possession because it defeats exclusivity and undermines a claim of hostile possession.
- In a quiet title action, appellate review of factual findings (including whether adverse possession elements were proven) is for clear error.

## Conclusion

Because the garage had been knowingly located on the boundary line and used jointly under an initial permissive arrangement, the evidence supported the district court’s finding that Geringer did not maintain exclusive and continuous possession sufficient for adverse possession, and title to the disputed property remained with the Gruebeles.


Gruebele v. Geringer, 640 N.W.2d 454 (N.D. 2002)