Manillo v. Gorski Supreme Court of New Jersey 1969 Parties: Manillo: Trespass by defendants, wins at trial level Gorski: She had gained title to the disputed premises by adverse possession, appealed Facts: In 1946, Defendant’s son built concrete steps to the house that accidentally extend 15 inches over the Plaintiff’s line of property. It remained that way for over 20 years. They agreed that the defendant had held “exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, visible, and notorious” possession against the interest of the owner for the correct statutory requirement but were held up on the idea that it was accidental. Thus, they ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and Gorski appealed. Damages Sought: Injunction against trespass Issue: May a claim of adverse possession be based on a mistaken possession? Rule: A claim of adverse possession may be based on a mistaken possession, but it must also be visible enough to put the owner on notice. Holding: Yes Reasoning: Follows the sense of the Connecticut Doctrine which dismisses the idea of intent all together and focuses on the neglect of the true owner. As long as it fits all the other elements, possession will be honored for the trespasser. Another issue must be addressed: whether the possession was truly open and notorious even though it was a minor encroachment. The only way to know if they encroached is to check it every time they made improvements, which requires undue burden on the true owner. Thus, no presumption of knowledge arises from minor encroachment, thus it is not open and notorious. Judgement: Remanded with these issues: (1) Whether the true owner had actual knowledge of the encroachment (2) If not, whether the plaintiffs should be obliged to convey the disputed tract to the defendant (3) If yes, what consideration should be paid for the conveyance *They ended up settling for $250*