In 1974, the Mansells built a shed with a dirt floor, to be used as a three-car garage, at the back of their property. This shed went beyond the Mansells’ property line and encroached approximately fourteen feet on the neighboring property. The neighbor knew of the encroachment and informally approved it, but did not transfer ownership of the property. In 2001, Betty Hunter bought the neighbor’s property. The survey done at that time revealed the encroachment. In 2003, Hunter’s attorney notified the Mansells about the encroachment, and the parties held some informal conversations but did not reach an agreement. In 2006, the Mansells installed a concrete foundation and ran electricity to the structure. Hunter then sought a declaratory judgment that she was the fee simple owner of the property partially covered by the garage that encroached on her property, and demanded the removal of the encroaching structure. The Mansells filed a counterclaim arguing that the possession of the property from 1974 to 2001 gave them ownership by adverse possession. The trial court held that the property still belonged to Hunter, but did not order removal of the garage. Hunter and Mrs. Mansell (whose husband had died in the meantime) both appealed. Did the open occupation of the property for twenty-eight years give Mansell title by adverse possession? Why or why not? [Hunter v. Mansell,___ P.3d ___ (Colo.App. 2010)]