Acquisition by Adverse Possession Flashcards
Adverse Possession definition
Transfer of interest in land to oneself
without the consent of the prior owner and even in spite of the dissent of such owner.
When the statute of limitations for trespass ends,
Adverse possession begins
Reasons for AP
Efficient allocation
Interest in discouraging sleeping owners
Rewarding hardwork of adverse possessor
We need some sort of system to settle old property claims
Elements of AP (6)
Actual, Exclusive, Open/Notorious, Continuous for Statutory period, Adverse/ Hostile, Under claim of right/ title
Actual element
literal entry into the property that is being adversely possessed
Exclusive element
Adverse possessor controls access to the property in an ordinary manner (based on the property being adversely possessed) (has it been challenged?)
used as a true owner would
not shared with the public (but can invite people)
Open/ Notorious element
Entry must be discoverable by a reasonable property owner (not actual notice but what they should have known) (would an ordinary owner be able to tell there is an adverse possession? If yes: then it will put an ordinary person on notice and be open: example: hosting parties and paying property taxes)
Continuous element
Continuous possession equal to that of a true owner for the kind of property being adversely possessed, mirrors coming and going of owner (must have statutory period given but if they have been there a long time we can say they probably satisfied it)
doesn’t have to be every second
If statutory period not stated say we would not know but ^^^
Adverse/ Hostile element 2 points
The adverse possessor must infringe on the rights of the true owner, by asserting a superior ownership claim to the property
Claim of right/ title element
- Meaning 1:
This refers to the state of mind with which the adverse possessor acts. This requirement is based on jurisdiction. Three different approaches:
- State of mind does not matter
- Good faith required
- Aggression required
- Meaning 2:
This can also refer to the way the adverse possessor is claiming an interest in the property.
For instance, the adverse possessor could be claiming an interest in the property pursuant to a defective written instrument (like a deed). They have an instrument that makes them think they own it. This is called? Color of title
- Or the adverse possessor could be claiming an interest in the property in a way authorized by the relevant state code.
Must go over all if not mentioned
If not successful it is just trespass and can be subject to legal ramifications
Color of title notes
Color of title lessens the actual entry element when referring to entire premises (except to non-sleeping owners who get an equitable split)
Why? if you think you own it you don’t have to use it
Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz
Rule of Law
A party takes adverse possession of a property owned by another when he takes actual possession of it, encloses it or makes improvements to it, for a statutory period of years.
Facts
The Lutz family (defendant) bought Lots 14 and 15 in Yonkers in 1912. Between then and 1947, they accessed their property by cutting across Lots 19-22 (collectively, Lot 19). Over time, Lutz built a structure and started a gardening business on Lot 19, which he knew that he did not own. In 1947, the Van Valkenburgh family, with whom the Lutzes did not get along, purchased Lots 19-22 and demanded that Lutz remove his structures and garden from Lot 19. Lutz agreed to do so, but claimed that his family should be permitted continuing use of the path through Lot 19 to access his property. Lutz then removed some of the structures from the land. Van Valkenburgh erected a fence blocking the path that Lutz had claimed a right to use. Lutz sued Van Valkenburgh, arguing that although Van Valkenburgh owned the land, Lutz had established a right of way through it. The court ruled in Lutz’s favor, holding that Lutz had the right to use the path. The court of appeals affirmed. Van Valkenburgh later sued Lutz, complaining that the remainder of Lutz’s structures (a garage and a shed) infringed upon his land. Lutz generally denied the allegations, and additionally filed a counterclaim asserting that he owned the land claimed by Van Valkenburgh by virtue of having adversely possessed it for more than 30 years. The trial judge agreed with Lutz and held that Lutz had acquired title to the land by adverse possession. The intermediate appeals court affirmed, and Van Valkenburgh appealed.
Issue
May a person claim adverse possession of real property that he knows he does not own by using and erecting structures on the property?
Holding and Reasoning (Dye, J.)
No. In order to establish adverse possession in New York, the claimant must occupy the land “under claim of title” for 15 years. Lutz admitted that he knew that he did own the land on which he built a small shed. He also admitted that, having not taken a survey of the land, he thought that the garage he built was actually on his land. The circumstances were not enough to hold that Lutz did anything to the land “under claim of title,” which the court defined to mean hostile to its true owners. Additionally, Lutz had asserted in previous litigation that Van Valkenburgh in fact owned the property, and secured a judgment in his favor based in part on that assertion; he cannot in subsequent litigation disavow that admission. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and Lutz’s counterclaim is dismissed. The trial court must enter judgment in Van Valkenburgh’s favor subject to the previously established right of way.
Not claiming under color of title (defective instrument) so makes it harder
To satisfy if no defective instrument: cultivation or enclosure new york requirement
Manillo v. Gorski
Gorski bought house and added two rooms and walkway that extended 15 inches into yard next door
Neighbor said they encroached but did not complain
Gorski built fence
Neighbor sued and Gorski counterargued adverse possession
Since possession was a mistake and not intentional it was insufficiently hostile (trial)
Supreme court: A claim of adverse possession may be based on a mistaken possession, but it must also be visible enough to put the owner on actual notice, not just constructive. Manillo knew about it & we don’t want to rule it requires aggression.
The trial court was correct that Gorski’s possession was exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted and against the right of the true owner. It was incorrect in concluding that, because the possession was due to Gorski’s mistake, it lacked the necessary hostility, or that Gorski had shown that her possession was visible and notorious. On the matter of mistaken possession, the Maine doctrine requires an adverse possessor to deliberately take the property in question, which rewards a person who takes property with premeditated hostility while penalizing someone who makes an honest mistake. The alternative Connecticut doctrine does not inquire into the motives of the possessor. This is the superior approach.
Here, there was sufficient evidence to sustain Gorski’s claim of adverse possession except for the matter of whether it was visible and notorious. Gorski’s encroachment onto Mannillo’s property was only 15 inches along a common border, invisible to the naked eye, so Mannillo’s knowledge cannot be presumed. The case is remanded to the trial court to determine whether Mannillo had actual knowledge of Gorski’s encroachment and, if not, whether the Manillos should be required to convey the property to Gorski and what consideration would be appropriate.
Howard v. Kunto
4 consecutive lots in resort area 1-4 e-w
Kunto bought 2, used as summer house, mcall to miller to kunto, moyer 3, howard 4
Each owner owned wrong houses, actually all owned one to the left
2 and 3 switched (moyer and howard)
Kunto said AP of lot 2 because continuous possession
Trial court awarded to Howard and that Kunto was only seasonal use and possession was less than 1 year and not 10 years required
Can we also count previous owners use of time?
Rule: Adverse possession occurs if a person takes actual possession of property that is uninterrupted, open and notorious, hostile and exclusive, under a claim of right for a statutorily specified period of time.
Kunto and predecessors only used house at beach house
for second issue: tacking past owners is allowed, allowed all owners for consideration which went over 10 years (to satisfy continuity requirements but only if they are in privity (close relationship)
Judgement for Kunto
O’Keeffe v. Snyder (adverse of chattels)
O’Keeffe did not know the whereabouts of the paintings until 1975, when she immediately sued. The statute of limitations was tolled until that time. Thus, O’Keeffe is entitled to judgment in her favor.
Rule: The discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations if the owner of stolen personal property acted with due diligence to pursue the property.
Okeefe abstract painter and tried to recover several missing paintings
1946 discovered they were missing but was not reported until 1972
Learned 1976 paintings were sold to gallery
Okeefe brought sought of replevin
Does the discovery rule toll the statute of limitations if the owner of stolen personal property acted with due diligence to pursue the property?
State Supreme court:
Yes. The discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations if the owner of stolen personal property acted with due diligence to pursue the property. The discovery rule requires that the owner of stolen personal property act with due diligence to pursue the property to receive the benefit of the tolling of the statute of limitations. In determining how much time a true owner has to successfully bring an action to recover stolen personal property, there are two possible methods:
(1) a statute-of-limitations rule or
(2) an adverse-possession rule.
(1) O’Keeffe used due diligence to recover the paintings at the time of the theft, (2) there was an effective method at the time for O’Keeffe to alert the art world of the theft, and (3) registering the paintings would put a reasonably prudent purchaser on notice as to the true owner. Accordingly, the appellate court’s judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
