This is the case of Schlichtling v. Cotter

Judgment:

Issue:

Holding:

General Analysis

Applied Analysis

2. Schlichtling lived on her property since 1979 and had a friendly relationship with her then-neighbors, the Nitsos. The boundary between the two parcels had never been surveyed, and the parties had a vague un- derstanding of where the boundary lay. Schlichtlingcontinuously and exclusively gardened, mowed, and otherwise cared for land that she thought was hers. The Nitsos sold their property to the Cotters in 2005, and the Cotters claimed that Schlichtling was en- croaching on their land. The Cotters cut down trees on the disputed parcel, removed part of a stone wall, dug up the lawn, cut up a driveway that crossed the land, erected a fence, and otherwise disturbed the property. Schlichtling applied for a temporary injunc- tion against the Cotters to stop them from entering and altering the land and to direct them to return the prop- erty to the state in which Schlichtling had maintained it. The court's decision, of course, depended on who was the rightful owner of the disputed parcel of land. During the legal proceedings, surveys showed that the land had originally been part of the Nitsos' property, but they and Schlichtling had mutually mistook the proper boundary. As such, does Schlichtling have any claim to the land