Adverse Possesion

Question 0

Quiet Title Suit

Answer 0

claiming right of title against someone else

Question 1

AP Theory

Answer 1

The law wants to promote productive use of property and discourage sleeping on one’s rights; when statute of limitation runs it bars ejectment (or other) actions by the owner and title transfers to adverse possessor; societal value is to clear titles to promote order and certainty

Question 2

4 elements

Answer 2

1. actual entry giving exclusive right
2. open and notorious
3. adverse and under a claim of right– hostile
4. continuous for statutory period

Question 3

actual entry giving exclusive possesion

Answer 3

Exclusive of true owner and general public
Physical possession; can’t possess from afar
Can invite others onto land as long as it’s consistent with the way that character property would be used
Only get title through AP of what you use
Exception to this is if it is under color of title

Question 4

Open and Notorious

Answer 4

No hermits, instead it’s used as a true owner would normally use it
Such that others believe the land is yours
Must improve the land; productive use
Must be such that the true owner is on notice
Standard is constructive notice; objective: if the owner should have had knowledge the court will find notice
For minor encroachments sometimes the court will require actual knowledge.

Question 5

Adverse and under claim of right- hostile

Answer 5

Adverse to owner—without consent of owner
State of mind relevant for entire period of possession:
Objective: state of mind irrelevant (incorporates both of the others)
Good Faith: “I thought I owned it”
If you enter with a color of title you likely have a good faith intent
Aggressive Trespasser: “I knew I didn’t own it and entered anyway because I intended to make it mine”

Question 6

Continuous for statutory period

Answer 6

Must be continuous, no interruptions in use
Used the way the character of the property is meant to be used
Reasonable, temporary absence doesn’t restart SoL clock
Possession may be “tacked” if there is “privity”
Ousters cannot establish privity

Question 7

Van Valkenburg v. Lutz

Answer 7

Ct. App. NY, 1952 - Court reversed finding of AP because Ds didn’t cultivate and improve the property pursuant to NY law, the premises were not improved (noting the junk stored on the land), garage unintentionally encroached so it wasn’t “hostile”, and they did not intend to take title. Court concluded there was continuous occupation but no improvement, or enclosure of the land based on brother’s shack and small farming.
Adverse Possession rule:
Must show by clear and convincing proof that for at least a specified amount of time, the property was occupied and no others occupied the property
Must be protected my substantial enclosure
Land is cultivated or improved

Question 8

Claim of title

Answer 8

A way of expressing requirement of hostility

1. state of mind is irrelevant (objective)
2. i thought i owned it (good faith)
3. i knew i didnt own it, but i wanted it (aggressive tresspasser)

Question 9

color of title

Answer 9

written instrument that is defective or invalid

Question 10

manillo v. gorski

Answer 10

Sup Ct. NJ, 1969- Defendant built steps which encroached onto Plaintiff property. Defendant claims land was acquired by adverse possession because there was knowledge of the encroachment by the plaintiffs and by mistake they should be granted the land. Court holds that if it’s a small area then the statute period for adverse possession does not run until there is knowledge of the encroachment.
Minor encroachments do not give a land owner fair notice of land to be adversely acquired
Statute of limitations begins when an owner has actual knowledge of encroachment

Question 11

howard v. kunto

Answer 11

Ct App, Wash, 1970 - The real issue here was continuity of occupation. Kuntos got title from previous owners who used it as a summer home. Howard actually had title to their land because of a surveyor mistake. Court held tacking was permitted because there was sufficient privity and use as a summer home did not make it interrupted use because that was the character of the property and that’s how it would ordinarily be used. Court held AP satisfied. Owners cared for property and maintained condition
Summer possession counts as continuous possession
Tacking period can include past ownership and present ownership under privity (contractual relationship to a prior owner)
Owner does not have to be on the land continually, if land is occupied during the period of time during the year it is capable of use, there is sufficient continuity.

Question 12

Tacking

Answer 12

When time periods of occupation can be combined to make up the required statutory period for the statute of limitations.
Statute of limitations can continue to run if two parties have privity and combined, have met statute of limitations
However, there must be a harmonious privity agreement
If there’s an unharmonious disruption of continuous possession, the disruption period gets tacked on
10 years, plus additional time unoccupied (10 years and 6 months, page 142)

Question 13

disabilities

Answer 13

If underage, of unsound mind, or imprisoned, you get an extra 10 years after disability is removed
But you only get one disability period (max 10 years)

Question 14

AP Against the government

Answer 14

under common law it is a no go

some states though have passed statutes allowing AP against the govt.

Question 15

AP of Chattels

Answer 15

Discovery rule of adverse possession
Statute of limitations will not run on an adverse possession case until the owner discovers the facts which form a cause of action, because we will never know when actual entry or possession takes place
Owner must my use reasonable diligence in trying to get the property back in the mean time
Therefore, discovery rule should be used in adverse possession to chattels, to provide equitable consideration
Owner must show that the limitations should be deferred

Question 16

o’keefe v. snyder

Answer 16

Sup Ct. NJ, 1980- O’Keeffe claims paintings were stolen from her in the 1946, but filed report with art dealers in 1972. In 1975, O’Keeffe learned that Synder had purchased the paintings from Frank. Frank claimed the paintings were given to his family by O’Keeffe’s husband in 1941 and they had continuous possession. O’Keeffe claims statute of limitations had not run until the discovered Synder had them.
There are factual disputes as to whether the paintings were stolen or given away
Could be a situation of theft or a voidable title (147-148)
Under discovery rule, the statute of limitations on an action for replevin begins to run when the owner knows or reasonably should know of his cause of action and the identity of the possessor of the chattel.
An owner should use reasonable diligence to get property back using customary practices within the nature of the property (i.e. police reports, art theft report, regulatory commission)