Acquisition by Adverse Possession

Question 1

Purpose

Answer 1

Method of transferring interests in land w/o consent of the prior owner, even in spite of the dissent of such owners.

Question 2

Policy reasoning behind Adverse Possession

Answer 2

Rests upon social judgement that there should be a restricted duration for the assertion of “Aging claims” and that the passage of a r’able time period should assure security to a person claiming to be an owner.

Question 3

Requirements of AP

Answer 3

1. Actual Entry
2. Exclusive Entry
3. Open and notorious
4. Continuous for statutory period
5. Adverse and under a claim of right (Hostile)

Question 4

Entry that is actual

Answer 4

AP must use land in the same way a r’able owner would.
Majority view: varies based on type of land (city/rural)
Minority: statute specifies what activities constitute AP

Question 5

Entry that is exclusive

Answer 5

True owner cannot be there and it cannot be used by the public
*Note true owner just visiting does not destroy exclusivity

Question 6

Open and Notorious

Answer 6

• AP must be visible and obvious, such that a r’ably attentive property owner would be on notice that someone is on their property
• Owner must have actual knowledge of occupier for minor encroachments
• Penalizing the negligent dormant property owner for sleeping on his own rights

Question 7

Continuous

Answer 7

Typically (in NY) 10 years of occupation uninterrupted

• if AP abandons/takes breaks at any time the statute of lims restarts
• in this time the property must be used in a way that an average true owner would use it under the circumstances such that neighbors and other observers would recognize person as exercising exclusive domain.

Question 8

Adverse under claim of right (hostile)

Answer 8

Must intend to deprive true owner of land - if permission then no hostility
- distinguishes trespasser and squatters from APs

Question 9

Tests for Hostile

Answer 9

1. Objective - (maj view) standing apart was 3rd person, can toy make determination that the land is being used by the claimant w/o owner’s permission?
2. Good faith - (minority) claim of right by occupant who must innocently believe he/she has a right to be there in order to meet the hostility requirement; considers mental state
3. Land piracy test: claimant must be intentional wrongdoer intending to arrest title away from true owner.

Question 10

Statute of Lims

Answer 10

Limit on time for true owners to have APs ejected. AP can never win on a claim opposing ejection if SL has not run.

Tacking: Combining the time of possession w that of other AP’s

Question 11

Disabilities

Answer 11

SL will extend if at at the time cause of action arose (aka when AP started) true owner couldn’t eject due to disability
(mental, underage, imprisoned).
Once disability lifted - 5 years to bring COA if statute of lims has run.

Question 12

Claim of title

Answer 12

1 way of expressing the requirement of hostility or claim of right on the part of the AP

Question 13

color of title

Answer 13

A claim founded on a written instrument (like deed or will) that is for some reason defective and invalid. It doesn’t have to be good, it just has to support AP’s activities under the owners.

If you have actual possession over only part of what the writing describes, u have constructive possession of all of what it describes.

Question 14

Quieting title

Answer 14

A party w claim of ownership can file an action to quiet title, aka suit which protects against anyone else who has a claim to the land.

Question 15

Mannillo v. Gorski

Facts

Answer 15

Def built steps and a concrete walk that extended by 15 inches onto P’s property. P’s not aware of encroachment bc they believed it wasn’t their prop.

Question 16

Mannillo v. Gorski

Holding

Answer 16

Court agrees with Connecticut doctrine that states that you should not inquire into the motives of the possessor. As long as you cover the steps of adverse possession and it is noticeable to the other party then it’s good.

Question 17

Mannillo v. Gorski

Reasoning/Rules

Answer 17

Conn: objective test. Whether standing away as a 3rd person one would determine that land was being used w/o permission of true owner.
Gf test: claim of right by an occupier who innocently believes they have a right to be on the land. mental state satisfies hostility requirement (minority)

Land piracy test (Maine): Occupier in bad faith w/ knowledge they have no right to the land attempts to arrest it from true possessor.

For minor encroachments, person being adversely possessed against must have actual knowledge, meaning actual notice someone is on their property.

Question 18

Howard v Kunto

Facts

Answer 18

Everyone living on street had deed to the lot next to them, not the one they actually lived on. Howards had survey done and discovered this.
Kuntos took possession of a property under deed from the Millers. The deed was defective bc it described an adjacent lot rather than the right one. The Howards held the deed to the property occupied by the Kuntos, and brought suit to quiet title on Kunto’s land. The Kuntos only resided there in the summer and had the property for less than a year.

Question 19

Howard v Kunto

Holding

Answer 19

AP found for Kuntos

Question 20

Howard v Kunto

Reasoning

Answer 20

Here continuity doesn’t mean actual continuous presence on the land since it was a summer home in beach area. Allowed successive tacking where successive occupants are in privity, which can be established by land transfers b/w successive occupants.

Question 21

Howard v Kunto

Rule

Answer 21

Continuity is any possession that comports w the conduct of owners in general in holding, managing and caring for property of similar nature and condition.

Question 22

Walling v. Pryzblo

Facts

Answer 22

APs cultivated a lawn by bulldozing and filling w topsoil Ito install a PVC pipe. He mows every week or two, and put a bird house on the land. He cared for it for 20 years. When the land was surveyed it was found it belonged to neighbor (Def) who lived there for 10 of the 20 years.

Question 23

Walling v. Pryzblo

Holding

Answer 23

AP found for Ps

Question 24

Walling v. Pryzblo

Reasoning

Answer 24

State of mind is irrelevant here, applying objective standard that a r’able 3rd party who saw the way P treated land as their own for the statutory period should award them AP.

Effect of case: Acts of mowing lawn or similar maitenance across boundary line of property shall be deemed permissive and non-adverse; even where there have been acts sufficiently open to put r’able dilligent owner on notice.