Manillo v. Gorski
Citation: 54 N.J. 378 (1969)
Facts
Gorski built steps and a concrete walk that encroached about 15 inches onto Manillo’s land. The encroachment resulted from a mistaken belief about where the boundary was. Gorski claimed adverse possession after more than 20 years.
Issue
Can adverse possession be established through a mistaken (good faith) belief about the location of a boundary, or does adverse possession require knowing, intentional encroachment?
Holding
Good faith mistake is sufficient for adverse possession. The court rejected the “Maine doctrine” (requiring intentional, hostile claim) in favor of the “Connecticut doctrine” (allowing adverse possession when the claimant actually possesses the land, regardless of subjective intent about ownership). The court also held that mandatory injunction would be inequitable given the encroachment’s minor nature and the cost of removal; instead, the court allowed the adverse possessor to purchase the strip at fair market value.
Rule
Adverse possession — good faith encroachment: Adverse possession requires actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, and continuous possession for the statutory period. “Hostile” does not require bad faith or knowing trespass — an innocent encroachment under a mistaken belief satisfies the hostility requirement (Connecticut/objective rule).
Equitable remedy: When a good-faith encroacher cannot easily remove the encroachment without disproportionate cost, equity may compel the true owner to convey the disputed strip in exchange for fair value rather than ordering removal.
Significance
- Leading case rejecting the Maine doctrine’s subjective intent requirement for adverse possession
- The majority of states follow the objective “Connecticut” approach — hostility means use without the true owner’s permission, not subjective intent to claim ownership
- The equitable remedy alternative (compelled conveyance at market value) illustrates courts’ flexibility in boundary dispute cases