b18b63d2-9da8-4048-a345-406f218e01f9.doc
147
Mannillo v. Gorski, Superme Court of NJ, 1969 Does intent matter? Issue
Was it open and Notorious?
Reasoning
Intent doesn’t matter. Mistake does not matter
Rule
Facts
Gorski made improvements to house that encroached on 15 inches of Mannillo’s house (more than 20 yrs ago). Gorski didn’t know they were on ∏’s land.
Did not follow Main Doctrine. Following Maine doctrine. Mistake or not, owner neglected to seek recovery. Not Open and Notorious. Where possession is clear and unequivocal and to such an extent as to be immediately visible, the owner may be presumed to have knowledge of adverse occupancy. However, if small area of intrusion that is not clear and self-evident to the naked eye, but requires a survey, the presumption is not justified. No presumption of knowledge arises from a minor encroachment along a common boundary unless owner has actual knowledge in which case it satisfies “open and notorious.”
A different rule would overburden the owner: requiring him to get a survey done everytime the neighbor does any improvements.
Equity may furnish relief.
Held Procedure P argues D argues
Remanded. Trial court said: exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, visible, notorious. But not intentional.
b18b63d2-9da8-4048-a345-406f218e01f9.doc
147