ADVERSE POSSESSION AND PRESCTIPTION
a) THEORY AND ELEMENTS
Against the true owner
Starts the Clock running
One long Stretch of time, look to how it is normally used.
With notorious, and it is clear that they are on the land
claim of Right
Aggressive trespasser, Good faith Standard, Objective Standard Majority.
Mailbox, paying taxes, a serious fence, etc.
You and only you are excluding the land owner
Statute of Limitations
It meets the statute of limitations.
(1) Adverse Possession – 4 Elements:
(a) Actual entry/exclusive possession
(b) Open & notorious; serves as notice to true owner – 3 standards of notice:
(i) Objective standard – state of mind of AP is irrelevant
(ii) Good faith standard – AP thought they owned the property
(iii) Aggressive trespasser – AP knows he doesn’t own property but decides to take it anyway.
(c) Adverse & under a claim of right – hostile to true owners claim.
(d) Continuous for a statutory period – 21 years unless there’s a disability.
ii) Reasons for adverse possession:
1. encourages beneficial use of land
2. quiet title
3. laches – action for sleeping on your rights (punishes landowner who doesn’t use his land)
4. expectations of adverse possessor
a. Claim of Right (Title) – claimant is in possession as owner with intent to claim the land as his own & not in recognition or subordination to record title owner.
b. Color of Title – claim founded on a written document which is defective for some reason.
iii) O’KEEFE v. SNYDER:
(2) Facts: Three of O’Keeffe’s paintings were stolen from an art gallery. The thefts were not reported to anyone.
(3) Issue: If possession of chattels is obtained by theft, and the true owner makes diligent efforts to locate and recover the chattels, is the statute of limitations for adverse possession tolled?
(4) Holding: Yes.
(5) Reason: The statute of limitations is tolled if the owner of stolen chattel makes diligent efforts to locate and recover the lost chattel.
b)Color of Title / Constructive adverse Possession
i) VAN VAL
r minds later on.
RULES ON BOUNDARY DISPUTES
a. Mistaken Boundaries
1. Maine Doctrine – AP claimant must have a knowing intent to claim the land, even if the reason for the claim is based on a mistake; rewards trespassers/asses
2. Mannillo – no knowing, intentional hostility required (adopts Connecticut view); objective standard (nice because we don’t have to question intent)
iii) MANNILLO v. GORSKI: 6/1/04
(1) Name: The case where the path encroached 15 inches.
(2) Facts: A property owner sought to enjoin the alleged trespass oven and joining land owner whose pathway encroached 15in. and who claimed title to the strip the ad verse possession.
(a) Must position be accompanied by a knowing intentional hostility for adverse possession?
(b) Does a minor border encroachments as by the opened in the port is recorded for adverse possession?