Peterson operated a private golf course in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. In 1964, Peterson sold property adjoining the golf course, including a restaurant and parking lot, to AL. The parking lot was used by the golfers on Peterson's golf course and by restaurant patrons. In 1978, AL sold the property containing the parking lot to VBC. Peterson had always maintained the parking lot. In 1992, VBC demanded Peterson pay rent for the use of the parking lot by the golfers. Peterson sued, claiming title to the parking lot by adverse possession. Is Peterson right? [Peterson v. Beck, 537 N.W.2d 375 Sup. Ct., S.D. (1995)]