Suits to determine adverse claims
Source:
Section 105.605 — Suits to determine adverse claims, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors105.html
.
Notes of Decisions
The court rule for a suit to quiet title is that plaintiff may maintain such a suit whenever an adequate remedy at law is not available even if the plaintiff is not in actual possession. Hall v. Smith, 269 Or 215, 523 P2d 1254 (1974)
Where there is a severance between the mining and surface rights, actual possession of the surface by the mining rights owner must be shown by activities beyond the use of the surface for mining purposes. Yaquina Bay Timber v. Shiny Rock Mining, 276 Or 779, 556 P2d 672 (1976)
“Actual possession” necessitates activities which show an intent to hold land as one’s own; equivocal conduct such as an occasional or sporadic use is insufficient to show actual possession. Yaquina Bay Timber v. Shiny Rock Mining, 276 Or 779, 556 P2d 672 (1976)
Where testimony of possessor of land, who had lived on land more than 10 years, did not clearly establish when he began to assert an adverse claim, no title by adverse possession was established. McCall v. Hyde, 39 Or App 531, 592 P2d 1064 (1979)
Federal wrongful levy statute is not exclusive remedy in action to quiet title to property acquired at Internal Revenue Service sale. Vanderpool v. Sawyer, 125 Or App 300, 865 P2d 446 (1993)