Hammond v. Hammond

Pursuant to the discovery rule, "the period of limitation commences either when a plaintiff actually discovers his or her injury or when a reasonable person exercising reasonable care should have discovered his or her injury.” Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721, 725, 320 P3d 554 (2014). “To establish adverse possession, a claimant must show by clear and convincing evidence that his or her use of the property—or that of a predecessor in interest—was “actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous” for a period of 10 years, that the claimant had an “honest belief” that he or she was the actual owner of the property throughout the vesting period, and that that belief was objective and reasonable under the circumstances.” Case v. Burton, 250 Or App 14, 22-23, 279 P3d 259 (2012).

Plaintiff appealed from a judgment by the trial court which held that Plaintiff's ejectment claim was barred by the 10-year statute of limitations. Defendant cross-appealed, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his claim for adverse possession. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the statute of limitations was not triggered until Defendant’s use of the property met all of the elements of adverse possession. In response, Defendant argued that the statute of limitations was triggered when he began using the land. Additionally, Defendant argued that his mother’s will and testimony at trial were sufficient to establish the boundaries of the property. Pursuant to the discovery rule, "the period of limitation commences either when a plaintiff actually discovers his or her injury or when a reasonable person exercising reasonable care should have discovered his or her injury.” Rice v. Rabb, 354 Or 721, 725, 320 P3d 554 (2014). “To establish adverse possession, a claimant must show by clear and convincing evidence that his or her use of the property—or that of a predecessor in interest—was “actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous” for a period of 10 years, that the claimant had an “honest belief” that he or she was the actual owner of the property throughout the vesting period, and that that belief was objective and reasonable under the circumstances.” Case v. Burton, 250 Or App 14, 22-23, 279 P3d 259 (2012).  The Court held that the statute of limitations barred Plaintiff’s claim for ejectment because Defendant's actions over the years made Plaintiff aware of Defendant's intention to possess the land in question. Additionally, the Court held that Defendant failed to meet the "clear and convincing" evidence standard to establish the boundaries of the property to which Defendant should be granted adverse possession.

Affirmed on appeal and cross-appeal.