Other1 min read

Idaho court revives farm couple's 5.95-acre claim after decades of use

By · Via Times of India · Published by Everything Blog

In short

Greg and Leah Sempel contend that their continuous use of the 5.95-acre parcel for crops, livestock, structures, and timber satisfied adverse possession requirements by 1984. A 2016 survey prompted the state to file a lawsuit in August 2022 alleging unauthorized land use and property damage. The Idaho Supreme Court determined that the lower court improperly dismissed critical evidence, including a sworn statement regarding property tax payments and statutory exceptions covering recorded boundaries. As a result of the ruling, the competing claims over the parcel marked by an old barbed-wire fence will be formally re-examined.

Key points

  • The Idaho Supreme Court determined the lower court erred by disregarding sworn testimony…: The Idaho Supreme Court determined the lower court erred by disregarding sworn testimony concerning property tax payments.
  • Farmers can potentially establish adverse possession claims that legally matured prior to…: Farmers can potentially establish adverse possession claims that legally matured prior to the state acquiring the disputed land.
  • The competing ownership claims over the contested acreage must now be re-evaluated by the…: The competing ownership claims over the contested acreage must now be re-evaluated by the lower court.

Sources checked by our analysis pipeline: 1

An Idaho couple who have farmed in Benewah County since 1979 have won another chance to claim 5.95 acres of disputed land after the state Supreme Court overturned an earlier ruling in Idaho's favour on Tuesday. Greg and Leah Sempel believed the land was theirs because an old barbed-wire fence had marked their property's boundary for decades. However, the state claims the land belongs to it and sued the couple in 2022 over its alleged unauthorised use.

According to the

judgment, the couple run Pokey Creek Farm, where they have grown crops, kept animals and built structures over the years. They say the land inside the fence was theirs because that was what they had been told when the property was purchased. They said the fence had been there long before they arrived, and they continued to treat it as the boundary.

The state, however, has documents showing that the disputed 5.95 acres are part of a much larger property it acquired in 1996. But the Sempels argue that they had already been using the area for many years before…

Other