Cited by

(“Whether the adverse possession elements have been established is a question of fact.”).

“Whether the adverse possession elements have been established is a question of fact,” as is whether the elements of a prescriptive easement have been met

The “fact -intensive adverse-possession determinations rely largely on the credibility of witnesses and the weight, if any, to be given to their testimony.”

Starbeck v. Gibson, 4 v. Schuler, (d 458, 462 (Minn. 1972)).

d 261, 266 (Minn. App. 2003) ().

d 261, 266 (Minn. App. 2003) ().

Ganje v. Schuler , d 261, 266 (Minn. App. 2003) (citing Wortman v. Siedow, 216 N.W.

Moreover, the case relied upon by the district court, which suggests that an easement for ingress, egress, and utility purposes makes the Comparts’ farming of the land a permissive use.

(citing Wortman v. Siedow, 173 Minn. 145, 148, 216 N.W.

“[W]hether the findings of fact support a district court’s conclusions of law and judgment is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Ganje v. Schuler , (quotation omitted).

DECISION Whether a claimant establishes the elements of adverse possession is a question of fact, and this court will not set aside factual findings unless the findings are “clearly erroneous,” Minn. R. Civ.

DECISION “Whether the adverse possession elements have been established is a question of fact.”

to support their contention that evidence of adverse possession must be strictly construed without the benefit of any inferences or presumptions.