In 1966, Arketex Ceramic Corp. sold land in rural Indiana to Malcolm Aukerman. The deed described the southern boundary as the section line between sections 11 and 14 of the land. Farther south than this section line stood a dilapidated fence running east to west. Aukerman and Arketex both believed that this fence was the actual southern boundary of his new land, though in fact it lay on Arketex’s property.
Aukerman installed a new electrified fence, cleared the land on “his” side of the new fence, and began to graze cattle there. In 1974, Harold Clark bought the land that bordered Aukerman’s fence, assuming that the fence was the correct boundary. In 1989, Clark had his land surveyed and discovered that the true property line lay north of the electric fence. Aukerman filed suit, seeking a court order that he had acquired the disputed land by adverse possession. The statutory period in Indiana is 20 years. Who wins? Who ought to win? Does adverse possession make sense as a social policy? Why or why not?