## Facts

- Margaret Gorski owned Lot 1007, adjacent to Fred and Alice Mannillo’s Lot 1008 in Keansburg, New Jersey.
- Gorski entered possession in 1946 under an agreement to purchase; she received a deed in 1952.
- In 1946, additions to Gorski’s house included new concrete steps and a concrete walk on the west side of the house; in 1953, the steps were extended in length (not width).
- The steps and walk encroached onto the Mannillos’ lot by approximately 15 inches.
- The Mannillos acquired Lot 1008 in 1953 and later sued for injunctive relief to stop the trespass and compel removal.
- Gorski counterclaimed, asserting title to the encroached strip by adverse possession under the 20-year limitations period.
- The trial court ruled for the Mannillos, concluding Gorski’s mistaken belief that the strip was hers defeated the “hostile” element.

## Issues

1. Whether possession under a mistaken belief of ownership satisfies the “hostile” element of adverse possession.
2. Whether a minor boundary encroachment is “open and notorious” without proof that the record owner had actual knowledge of the encroachment.
3. If adverse possession is not established, whether equity may deny a mandatory injunction and instead require a compensated conveyance of the encroached strip.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey rejected the rule that hostility requires an intent to dispossess a known owner and held that mistaken possession may still be “hostile” if the other elements of adverse possession are met.
- The court held that a minor encroachment along a boundary does not presumptively provide notice; “open and notorious” requires proof that the record owner had actual knowledge of the encroachment.
- The court reversed the trial court’s hostility ruling, remanded for fact-finding on whether the Mannillos had actual knowledge of the encroachment for the statutory period, and authorized equitable consideration of relief if adverse possession failed.

## Legal Principles

- “Hostility” in adverse possession is determined by objective conduct inconsistent with the true owner’s rights; a possessor’s mistaken belief about title does not, by itself, defeat hostility.
- For minor boundary encroachments, constructive notice is not presumed from mere visibility; the statutory period does not run absent the true owner’s actual knowledge of the encroachment.
- Where an encroachment is innocent, slight, and removal would be oppressive compared to the harm, a court in equity may deny an injunction and instead compel conveyance of the affected strip for fair value plus proven consequential damages.

## Conclusion

The court adopted an objective test for hostility in adverse possession, required actual knowledge to satisfy “open and notorious” for minor boundary encroachments, and recognized an equitable alternative to removal—compelled conveyance with compensation—when a slight, innocent encroachment makes injunctive relief disproportionate.


Mannillo v. Gorski, 54 N.J. 378, 255 A.2d 258 (1969)