On May 26, 1996, William Patrick Hill acquired ownership of a tract of real property. Directly abutting Hill’s real property was a tract of real property owned by Roger Unker. Unker obtained title to his real property in 1995. Shortly after Hill acquired ownership to his property in 1996, Hill and Unker met at Hill’s request. According to Hill, he wanted to install a pool upon his property and needed to construct a fence per a city ordinance. At trial, Hill testified that he explained to Unker that Hill needed room in his side yard for the pool and fence.

Hill further testified that he and Unker decided upon a point and agreed that the fence would be located there. Hill then stated that he constructed a fence at the agreed location in 1996.

Subsequently, on April 25, 2002, Unker conveyed his real property to Damian and Cara Jimenez. A few years later, in 2005, Hill rebuilt the fence between the properties. Hill testified that the new fence was in the exact location as the old fence; however, Damian Jimenez testified that the new fence was not in the same location. In fact, Damian stated that the new fence was moved to farther encroach upon his property.

In 2016, the Jimenezes started construction on a garage addition to their home. Hill objected to the garage construction and believed that the garage was located too close to his property. Eventually, the zoning board concluded that Hill had encroached upon the Jimenezes’

property by construction of the fence per the relevant deed descriptions. On October 10, 2016, Hill filed a complaint in against the Jimenezes in which he claimed that he had acquired a strip of the Jimenezes’ property by adverse possession. Hill argued that he had openly and continuously occupied the strip of land since at least 1996. Has Hill met the requirements of adverse possession? How did the court rule?