Silver Surprize, Inc. v. Sunshine Mining Co.

(dissenting)—I respectfully disagree with the majority, not with its conclusion concerning the apex issue, but with its conclusion that “Sunshine has failed to sustain its burden of proving ouster by adverse possession as a matter of law.” (Italics mine.) The crux of the majority’s reasoning is that there was no substantial evidence of open, notorious, and unequivocal acts by Sunshine upon which the trial court could conclude that Sur-prize had actual knowledge of Sunshine’s entry into Sur-prize’s property or such knowledge or inquiry notice as would lead Surprize to investigate prior to…