Doenz V Garber Case
Business and Management
Submitted By tpayne32
March 14, 2014
In the case of Doenz v. Garber, the Doenz family fights the rules of adverse possession of the land acquired by the Garber family.
For this case, Wyoming Adverse Possession rule needs to be fully interpreted. Adverse possession is when a person wrongfully possesses someone else’s land if certain statutory requirements are made. If the elements of adverse possession are met, the adverse possessor acquires the title to the land. The possessor will be given a clear title as long as the statutory time period is met. In Wyoming all adverse possession rules must be met.
Based on the evaluation of the facts, the Garber family has claimed this land by adverse possession. The Garber family acquired their 80 acres of land by warranty deed; this deed was recorded with the state. This land had been enclosed by a fence for more than 50 years. The Garber’s ownership of this property for more than 10 years establishes a statutorily prescribed period of time. The fence established an area that was used to graze cattle and produce hay. Therefore, the Garber family established actual and exclusive ownership of the property. The land was physically occupied and used by the Garber family. The use of this land was continuous and uninterrupted during the time before the Doenz family acquired the adjacent property. Although the Garber’s had not been paying taxes on the land they acquired, this does not void the claim on adversely possessed land. Therefore the Garber’s have acquired the title through the adverse possession statute legally.
. The adverse possession requirements are met by the Garber family, therefore the Doenz family did not act ethically in the removal of the fence as they did not own the title to that land. The Garbers have acquired the land between their property line and the fence through adverse possession and they legally own the title to the property. They operated under the assumption the land was theirs and they were operating as such, therefore they are ethically clear in this situation. This case falls into ethical relativism, as they both acted in a manner they thought was correct in their minds. They should have came together and made a settlement agreement on the property before any actions were taken.