## Facts

- Howard and Catherine Stump owned residential riverfront property in Maurice River Township, New Jersey; Whibco owned the adjoining industrial tract.
- A disputed triangular strip lay on Whibco’s side of the deeded boundary, reaching about 52 feet at its widest point and extending roughly 618.5 feet along the boundary.
- The Stumps’ predecessors bought their parcel in 1948, when an old wire-mesh fence existed near the perceived boundary; testimony described the fence as overgrown, partially visible, and difficult to trace.
- In the late 1960s, the predecessors replaced the mesh fence with a railroad-tie-and-cable fence that was maintained and more apparent.
- Whibco acquired its tract on June 6, 1974; the Stumps bought their parcel on June 13, 1974 and used the land up to the fence for home-related purposes, including boat storage.
- Beginning around 1981, the Stumps made substantial installations and improvements on the strip, including a septic system (1981), boat ramp (1983), bulkhead (1985), and sign (1990).
- A 1990 survey disclosed the fence encroached onto Whibco’s land by approximately 1 to 52.5 feet.
- In 1991, the Stumps sued to quiet title by adverse possession; Whibco counterclaimed for ejectment, removal of encroachments, and damages for unlawful detainer.

## Issues

1. Whether the Stumps proved adverse possession of the disputed strip under New Jersey’s 30-year statute for non-woodland property, including the requirement that possession be open and notorious.
2. Whether a boundary-line fence that is close to the true line and not readily discernible as an encroachment without a survey can satisfy the open-and-notorious element, including consideration of the minor-encroachment concept.
3. When the statutory period, if at all, began—whether earlier fence-based use could start the period or whether it began only with later permanent improvements.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division treated the appeal as a granted interlocutory appeal and reached the merits.
- The court affirmed judgment for Whibco, holding the Stumps did not acquire title by adverse possession.
- The court agreed that the early fence and related use were too ambiguous and inconspicuous to provide the notice required for open and notorious possession.
- The court upheld the finding that clearly adverse possession, if any, did not begin until about 1981 when permanent improvements were installed; that start date could not satisfy a 30-year period by the 1991 filing.

## Legal Principles

- Adverse possession of non-woodland property requires 30 years of actual, continuous, exclusive, hostile possession that is open and notorious, such that a reasonably diligent owner would perceive the adverse claim upon inspection.
- A boundary-line encroachment that cannot reasonably be recognized as an encroachment without a survey—particularly where a fence is near the true line and obscured—may fail the open-and-notorious requirement.
- Later, conspicuous improvements may evidence hostile dominion and mark the start of adverse possession, but they do not retroactively convert earlier passive or unclear use into qualifying adverse possession for the statutory period.
- Tacking may be available in principle, but it cannot supply the statutory period where predecessors’ possession was not sufficiently open and notorious.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Stumps’ fence-based occupation and pre-1981 use did not give constructive notice of a hostile claim, and the more obvious acts of dominion began too late to meet the 30-year statutory requirement; therefore, Whibco retained title to the disputed strip.


Stump v. Whibco, 715 A.2d 1006 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998)