Owning Real Property Flashcards
What are the element of Adverse Possession?
Actual possession, exclusive possession, open and notorious possession, adverse and hostile possession, and continuous possession, statutory period
What is actual possession?
The claimant must physically use the land in the same manner that a reasonable owner would, given its character, location, and nature. The claimant can also meet this standard by using the land more intensively than a reasonable owner would
What is exclusive possession
The claimant’s possession cannot be shared with the owner or with the public in general
What is open and notorious possession?
The claimant’s possession must be visible and obvious, so that if the owners made a reasonable inspection of the land, he would become aware of the adverse claim
What is continuous possession?
The claimant’s possession must be as continuous as a reasonable owner’s would be, given the character, location and nature of the land
What is adverse and hostile possession?
Possession can’t be authorized by owner. Some states believe this requirement is only met if the claimant believes in good faith that he owns the land. In most states, the claimant’s state of mind is irrelevant. A third view, which is are, requires bad faith and the claimant must intend to take the title from the owner.
In Gurwit, why was his adverse possession claim successful?
They possessed and exercised dominion over the property as much as the character of the property admitted
They did as the chose with the property
They posed no trespassing and no hunting signs, indicating a “hostile” possession
The possession was open and notorious, Gurwit testified that he cut firewood, picked up trash along the road, and cleaned up the brush
The possession was exclusive
The possession was continuous over the 10 year statutory period
Why did the Lutz’s adverse possession claim fail?
The Lutz’s did not provide evidence that they utilized the entire property or made improvements.
- His garden did not utilize the entire property
- His garage encroachment extended a few feet over the boundary line and did not show proof of occupation by improvement
- The other acts Lutz committed over the year (placing a chicken coop, cutting brush and trees, and littering the property with house furnishings and parts of automobiles) were not acts that could be deemed as occupation by improvement
- Lutz already acknowledged that his occupation was not “under a claim of title” In his first suit he did not push for adverse possession he acknowledged that the Valkenburghs owned the title to the triangular parcel but that he was entitled to an easement to cross it.
Did Tiago Coal meet the adverse and hostile element of its adverse possession claim?
Yes, all other elements of adverse possession were met and the court determined that hostility could be implied because the taking and use of the street was sufficiently hostile even though they believed the city owned the street and not the supermarket. Their subjective state of mind was not relevant
What was the court’s holding in Howard v Kunto?
summer occupancy only of a summer beach house does not destroy the continuity of possession required by adverse possession. The occupancy of tract B during the summer months for more than the 10-year period by the Appellant and his predecessors, together with the continued existence of the improvements on the land and beach area, constituted uninterrupted possession.
Yes, successive purchasers who receive record title to tract A under the mistaken belief that they were acquiring tract B, immediately contiguous thereto, and where possession of tract B is transferred and occupied in a continuous manner for more than 10 years by successive occupants, have established sufficient privity of estate to permit taking and thus establish adverse possession.
