Adverse Possession

Question 1

Adverse Possession

Answer 1

When trespassers turn into owners

Question 2

Adverse Possession

Answer 2

Must be clear and convincing

Question 2

Brown v Gobble Border Dispute

Answer 2

Facts
In Brown v. Gobble, the dispute centered around a two-feet-wide strip of land running between the properties owned by plaintiffs/appellees Gary S. Brown and Mitzi Brown and defendants/appellants David L. Gobble and Sue Ann Gobble. The Gobbles claimed ownership of this strip through adverse possession, asserting they and their predecessors in title had used the land consistently with ownership for more than the statutory period required for adverse possession. The circuit court of Mercer County held a bench trial and concluded that the Gobbles had not proven their claim of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence, a decision from which the Gobbles appealed.
Issue
The issue on appeal was two-fold: whether the circuit court erred in applying a clear and convincing evidence standard to the claim of adverse possession and whether the court erred in finding that the evidence did not prove adverse possession.
Holding
The court held that the Gobbles’ claim of adverse possession had to be proven by clear and convincing evidence, aligning with the majority of jurisdictions that require a higher standard of proof for claims of adverse possession due to the significant and enduring impact such claims can have on property rights.
Reasoning

Question 3

elements of Adverse Possession

Answer 3

1. actual possession that is possession
2. open and notirous engaging in significant activities on the land
3. Exclusive is a type would be by the true owner and not shared with adverse possessor
4. Continous means continuous on the property but doesn’t have to be 24 hrs a day to be continuous
   Note*** Tacking is succeeding periods of parties that can be added together
5. Adverse or Hostile distinguishing the state of mind from the true owner from the adverse possessor

for the statutory period- means however many years the state require 5, 10, 15, 20 etc…

Question 4

Adverse Possesor State of mInd

Answer 4

Objective and Subjective test
Objective- state of mind irrelevant and lacked permission from the true owner

Subjective - permits an attitude and true owner did not give permission
subjective state of mind are NOTE Minority view
1. good faith mistakenly adversor takes care of the property that isn’t yours
2 intentional dispossession property owned by someone else can acquire ownership
3 claim of right is innocent possessor

Question 5

Privity

Answer 5

original owner adverse possessor purported to transfer title to the property of the successor

Question 6

Payne v Sexton Adverse Possession when trespass changes ownership

Answer 6

The plaintiffs, seeking to register the land, asserted claims based on adverse possession by demonstrating nonpermissive use of parts of the property for over twenty years, characterized by being actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and adverse.
Additionally, they claimed adverse possession under color of title for parts of the property they could not demonstrate actual use, relying on deeds purportedly conveying title to them. The defendants challenged the plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to fully enclose or cultivate the wooded parcels and that the deeds used to claim color of title provided inadequate descriptions.

Issue
The primary issue was whether the plaintiffs’ activities on the land constituted sufficient use to claim adverse possession, especially given the property’s largely undeveloped woodland nature. A secondary issue concerned whether the deeds referenced by the plaintiffs offered an adequate basis for a color of title claim.

Holding
The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the Land Court judge’s decision in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that their use of the property supported a claim of adverse possession and that the deeds referenced provided a sufficient basis for their color of title claim

Question 7

Color fo title

Answer 7

used to determine ownership and rights of property.

Question 8

Actual possession

Answer 8

is when part of the land is actually occupied by the owner

Question 9

Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom Adverse Possession

Answer 9

Facts
Nome 2000, the record title holder of a tract of land known as mineral survey 1161, which includes a disputed seven and one-half acre parcel overlooking the Nome River, filed suit to eject Charles and Peggy Fagerstrom from this parcel. The Fagerstroms counterclaimed, asserting they had acquired title to the entire parcel through adverse possession based on their use of the land. The trial evidence detailed the Fagerstroms’ extensive use of the parcel for subsistence and recreational activities dating back to Charles Fagerstrom’s childhood in the 1940s, including the placement of a camper trailer, construction of an outhouse and fish rack, planting of non-indigenous trees, and the establishment of a picnic area and a reindeer shelter in the 1970s. Despite these developments, others in the community also used the parcel for berry picking and fishing. The jury found in favor of the Fagerstroms, awarding them title to the entire parcel through adverse possession.

The primary issues on appeal were whether the Fagerstroms’ use of the disputed parcel satisfied the requirements for adverse possession, specifically whether their possession was continuous, open and notorious, exclusive, and hostile for the statutory period of ten years, and whether they were entitled to the entire parcel or only a portion of it.

Issue
The primary issues on appeal were whether the Fagerstroms’ use of the disputed parcel satisfied the requirements for adverse possession, specifically whether their possession was continuous, open and notorious, exclusive, and hostile for the statutory period of ten years, and whether they were entitled to the entire parcel or only a portion of it.

Holding
The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court held that the jury could reasonably conclude that the Fagerstroms established by clear and convincing evidence continuous, notorious, and exclusive possession for ten years prior to Nome 2000’s lawsuit, granting them title to the northerly portion of the parcel. However, the Court found that the Fagerstroms did not establish actual possession of the southerly portion of the disputed parcel, as their use of trails and litter collection, combined with the placement of cornerposts, did not sufficiently demonstrate exercise of dominion and control over this portion.

Question 10

Adverse Test

Answer 10

1. Open and notorious - visible reasonable owner passed
   Objective Standard
2. Continous- Continuously possessed and exercised control over the property
   Objective Standard
3. Exclusive - must not share with true owner
   Tacking standard
4. Advers- Hostile Possession is to be presumed non permissive
   Tacking Standard.
5. Notice meets Statuatory amonutnof time and years
   Tacking