Adverse Possession & Nuisance Cases Flashcards
D’s and pea’s own neighboring properties divided by a 2 feet wide tract of land, which was owned by P, but enclosed by D’s side of the fence. Dee bought the property from other people in 1985 who built the fence. Dee decided to build a road on the track and peas. Want to stop it in 1994
- P’s suing now because West Virginia statue of limitations is 10 years and declaim is about to ripen
Who has possession?
D (Gobbles). The previous owners owned the land for more than 10 years and under attacking, you can talk different adverse possessors to make up the statue of limitations period— just need to be connected by privity or title claim.
That was established here
tacking asserts adverse possession via passing of Title
Brown v. Gobble (1996)
P is operated a campsite, advertise it and put no trespassing signs up. They claimed ownership based off deeds that were convoluted so they saw to register their titles through color of title and adverse possession. D claimed to have title by saying that if property is undeveloped wilderness, the general rule is at the party claiming adverse possession must reduce the land of cultivation
- Suing now because as a newcomer which disrupted the relationship with the old neighbor
Who has title?
P has color of title claim under adverse possession.
Pains use of the land clearing campsites, constructing roadways, toilet buildings office restricting access to customers is sufficient to give the land owner notice and satisfy real for adverse possession of Wild or Woodlands
acting as true owner and meeting adverse possession elements, and clear up murky title claims
Paine v. Sexton (2015)
PO two tracks of land and D use one tractor during the summer months, including housing a cabin, planting trees and buildings things/tending to the land. People thought they owned the land and ask their permission to use it. P suit to eject.
- Suing now because Alaska statue of limitations is running up
Who gets the land?
D, Fagerstroms. Seasonal occupancy doesn’t destroy adverse possession.
They met adverse possession elements by using land like the average owner would; they had dominion over the property which put the land owners on notice and acted towards the land as if they owned it
That Nome 2000 argued Fagerstrom’s use the land stewardly like the Alaskan natives who don’t recognize exclusive ownership is wrong and messed up/irrelevant
- still met requirements of adverse possession
- convenient for None 2000 to bring up this caveat when judicial system has never respected it
seasonal occupancy doesn’t destroy adverse possession
Nome 2000 v. Fagerstroms (1990)
