Originally Posted by
AK lawyer
"95.18 Real property actions; adverse possession without color of title.—(1) When the occupant or those under whom the occupant claims have been in actual continued occupation of real property for 7 years under a claim of title exclusive of any other right, but not founded on a written instrument, judgment, or decree, the property actually occupied shall be held adversely if the person claiming adverse possession made a return of the property by proper legal description to the property appraiser of the county where it is located within 1 year after entering into possession and has subsequently paid all taxes and matured installments of special improvement liens levied against the property by the state, county, and municipality.
..."
The critical portion of this statute is "under a claim of title exclusive of any other right, ...". OP would have no claim of title under the facts given to us. One cannot simply squat down on a piece of property like a 16th Century colonist (even then, they received title from a magnate who in return had received a grant from a European monarch) and, after a while simply own it. But, 25 years from now, the different parties may have different recollections of what was said. So, I guess, the OP's friend who owns the land may have a valid point and should get something in writing.
One would, as I say, normally be claiming under "color if title" (meaning a written document), as addressed in this particular section. But there are other possibilities: belief that one inherited it, for example, or the belief that the land was a gift. I was simply giving OP a few examples, both of which happened to include a color of title.