## Facts

- In 1944, the Krouliks acquired property described as lying east of the east bank of the Animas River.
- In 1973, Knuppel acquired adjacent property described as lying west of the east bank; the deed’s courses and distances placed a disputed gravel bar within Knuppel’s record title.
- The disputed parcel was a gravel bar in the river corridor between the parties’ tracts.
- The Krouliks claimed they had used and exercised dominion over the gravel bar for decades for personal and commercial purposes.
- In 1976, Knuppel leased the gravel bar to Burnett Construction Company, which mined and removed gravel there through 1977.
- The mining allegedly damaged the land and vegetation, including destruction of a mature pine tree.
- In 1977, the Krouliks sued to quiet title and sought damages for unauthorized gravel removal and property damage.
- After trial, the court quieted title in the Krouliks based on both adverse possession and accretion, awarded damages for gravel removal measured by royalties received by Knuppel, and awarded $1,500 for the tree’s aesthetic value; it denied certain claimed litigation expenses (surveys and photographs).

## Issues

1. Whether the Krouliks established title to the gravel bar by adverse possession and/or accretion despite Knuppel’s record title.
2. What measure of damages applied for gravel removed from the disputed land when defendants were found not to be willful trespassers.
3. Whether the evidence supported the amount awarded for destruction of the pine tree, and whether survey and photographic expenses were taxable costs.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the quiet-title judgment, upholding the trial court’s findings that plaintiffs acquired the gravel bar through adverse possession and accretion.
- The court affirmed using the royalties Knuppel received as the measure of damages for the gravel removed.
- The court held that aesthetic value is a permissible component of tree-damage valuation but reduced the tree award from $1,500 to $238.03 (the amount supported by expert testimony).
- The court affirmed the denial of survey and photographic expenses as taxable costs due to lack of statutory authorization.
- The judgment was modified (as to tree damages) and, as modified, affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Adverse possession requires proof of actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous possession for the statutory period; long-term dominion and use may satisfy these elements.
- Where a boundary is defined by a riverbank, gradual river movement and formation of land can shift title by accretion.
- For non-willful trespass involving extraction of minerals, damages may be measured by the royalties received by the trespasser rather than the full market value of materials removed.
- Damages for destruction of a tree may include aesthetic or ornamental value, but the amount awarded must be supported by competent evidence in the record.
- Litigation expenses are taxable as costs only when authorized by statute; absent authorization, items such as survey and photographic expenses are not recoverable as costs.

## Conclusion

The court upheld plaintiffs’ ownership of a river gravel bar based on adverse possession and accretion, approved a royalty-based damages measure for non-willful gravel extraction, required evidentiary support for aesthetic tree damages by reducing an unsupported award, and disallowed survey and photographic expenses as taxable costs absent statutory authority.


Kroulik v. Knuppel, 634 P.2d 1027 (Colo. App. 1981)