Tieu v. Morgan Oregon Court of Appeals, 2011. Facts: In 1984, Robert Stevens divided his property with a fence. 10 years later, in 1994, he sold the L-shaped portion of property to his son, James Stevens. At the time of purchase, both parties believed that the fence was placed on the dividing line between the two properties, when in fact a three foot wide strip of Robert’s property extended beyond the fence. Throughout the entirety of James’s ownership of the L-shaped property both parties believed the strip of land to be a part of James’s property, as evidence by James’s installation of a sewer strip along the strip without Robert’s objection and Robert continually asking James’s permission to use the land to maneuver a boat into Robert’s backyard. Defendants bought the L-shaped strip from James in 1998, and operated under the assumption that the fence designated their property line (supported by James’s advertisement that the property had a “fully-fenced yard.” Ds operated a daycare center, which led to parents utilizing the strip of property when picking up and dropping off their children. Additionally, Ds maintained the fence and the strip of land by installing new posts and laying gravel and bark dust. Robert continued to ask D’s permission to use the land for the continued maneuvering of his boat. Robert sold his rectangular-shaped lot to Plaintiffs in 2006, at which time P had the land surveyed and discovered the true property boundary. P initiated the suit after D’s objection to P’s removal of the fence. Procedural History: P sued for (1) a declaration that he owned the disputed strip of land and (2) an injunction prohibiting Ds from trespassing on the property. Ds counterclaimed, asserting that they had acquired title to the disputed strip of land through adverse possession and moved for SJ. Trial court granted D’s SJ motion. P appealed. Issue: Holding: Judgement affirmed, Ds met all of the elements of a claim of adverse possession. Rationale: The evidence proves by clear and convincing evidence that Ds (and D’s predecessor in interest) maintained actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous possession of the disputed tract of land for ten years. As to actual (use of the land that would be made by an owner of the same type of land, taking into account the uses for which the land is suited), the evidence shows that Ds and their predecessor used the stip as an extension of the driveway, which is consistent with ownership and the land’s character. As to open and notorious (possession of such a character as to afford the owner the means of knowing it, and of the claim), the evidence shows that D’s predecessor placid a sewer line along the line and Ds themselves maintained the land and the fence. As to exclusive (how a reasonable owner would or would not share their property with others in like circumstances), while Ds and their predecessor did permit Robert to use the property, their permission was requested and received each time. As to hostile (possession under a claim of right or with color of title/ honest, but mistaken, belief of ownership), the belief of ownership was a pure mistake without a conscious doubt because the Ds purchased the land after it had been advertised as fully fenced, and they had not reason to doubt their ownership until P attempted to remove the fence. As to continuous, the evidence shows that between James and Ds the land was used continuously from 1994-2006. The court further rejected P’s contention that James’s use of the land could not be added to D’s for purposes of meeting the 10-year requirement. The court held that the evidence showed that James (the predecessor) had intended to transfer his adverse possessory right by advertising the land as fully fenced in.