Posted: March 26th, 2022

Property Boundaries Disputes

Property Boundaries Disputes

Introduction
Boundary disputes between adjacent neighbors are often a common issue affecting landowners. There are numerous ways in which boundary disputes can occur. In this case, John decided to use a part of Alice’s, his neighbor, property left idle without being used for a long period. In 2007, John started removing the growth adjacent to his garden, and in 2008, he increased these activities by spreading the lawn planting and seeds around the border. Finally, in 2009, when John decided to replace his fence, he positioned the fence to include the location he had started cultivating. While John was doing all these activities, Alice ignored his activities and worked on his development plans. Finally, about three weeks ago, Alice sold her property to Northcote Properties, a property investment company intending to develop the piece of land soonest possible. Although Northcote Properties has decided to write to John regarding asserting their legal ownership on the property, insisting that he remove the fence, John can still leverage on adverse possession to lay legal claim to the boundary’s disputed section of the boundary.
Adverse Possession
Adverse possession refers to a legal means through which trespassers; in most cases, a neighbor can claim title to an adjacent piece of land or property (Clarke & Greer, 2018). To claim title to any property through adverse possession, it has to be open to everyone, elusive, hostile to the true owner’s interests, and continuous for a statutory period. The conditions and rights for realizing adverse possession vary based on a given jurisdiction. For instance, in the United States, adverse possessors have to follow five key conditions to lay legal ownership of another person’s property successfully (Clarke & Greer, 2018). During this process, the original owner of a given property can recover possession of the land through legal means. Buswell (2019) explains that the English law stipulates that the original owner’s failure to exercise their rights by attempting to recover the property within a specified period, that right can disappear with the processor becoming the new owner of the property.
The Minimum Conditions That Satisfy an Adverse Possession Claim
However, this legislation has changed over the years, with key elements like the length of a given rule evolving. For instance, within the United States, the period available to an original owner varies between three to forty years, based on a specific state. For instance, while in Maine, it takes 20 years for a trespasser to visit the court to prove every claim element; it only takes ten years in Mississippi (Acku, 2000). Moreover, it’s worth noting that personal property is also adversely possessed, but the rules governing such situations tend to be stricter with the favor residing with a legal owner.
Adverse possession within the United States can be acquired through five minimum conditions that have to be met. The first condition regards actual possession where an adverse processor has to physically use the property and not just passing or walking through it (Swope, 2011). For example, they could physically use the property by mowing or harvesting it. Another element is hostile possession, where an adverse processor has to use the land without the original owner’s permission. The third element is the notorious and open use, where the adverse processor has to utilize their property visibly (Swope, 2011). These conditions exist so that the original owner has the potential to conclude that another person started a given claim. Continuous use stipulates that the adverse processor has to hold a specific property continuously during the period of occupation. Finally, exclusive use is the element where an adverse processor has to be the exclusive user. During this period, Swope (2011) explains that an original owner opts to use the property; no adverse possession can be claimed.
Case Study Analysis
In this case, John began cultivating the disputed property in broad daylight and even went ahead to construct the fence in full knowledge of the previous owner, without being questioned. As such, everyone could see that John had constructed his fence a few extra feet into the disputed property. This understanding implies that John’s land use meets open, hostile, and exclusive requirements. Moreover, before constructing the fence, John had been actively using the property through cultivation, in full knowledge of Alice without any question. This act met the third element of adverse possession requiring the notorious and open use of property, where the adverse processor has to utilize their property visibly. This series of events demonstrates that he has met the necessary elements that allow him to raise a property’s legal claim through adverse possession.
Within the United States, the period available to an original owner to contest ownership to their property varies between three to forty years. In this case, John started accessing in 2005, and nobody contested him until 2009. This period represents four years, which means the minimum requirement for the amount of period required for adverse possession claims to take effect. The fact that John had occupied the property for more than three implies that he stands a chance of acquiring legal ownership of the property by raising an adverse possession claim. Additionally, the fourth element stipulates that the adverse processor has to hold a specific property continuously during the period of occupation. In this case, John actively used the property continuously for at least four years without Alice raising any claim.
Finally, hostile possession existed in this case because the adverse processor, who was John, used the land without the original owner’s permission. Although Alice had the full knowledge of John’s activities on the piece of land, she didn’t bother to question him. Similarly, despite John knowing that Alice was the property owner and her intentions to develop it by constructing commercial apartments, he didn’t request Alice for any permission. These conditions satisfy that hostile possession existed in this case because John never sought any permission to go ahead with his activities. Based on this understanding, John has a right to make an adverse possession claim.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Although Northcote Properties has decided to write to John regarding asserting their legal ownership on the property, insisting that he remove the fence, John can still leverage on adverse possession to lay legal claim to the boundaries disputed section of the boundary. Adverse possession within the United States can be acquired through five minimum conditions that have to be met. In this case, John has met all these conditions because hostile possession existed since John used the land without the original owner’s permission. Moreover, John had continuously occupied the property for more than three years, which implies that he stands a chance of acquiring legal ownership of the property by raising an adverse possession claim. John had been actively using the property through cultivation, in full knowledge of Alice without any question. These conditions satisfy the adverse possession requirement, which John can leverage to lay claim to the piece of land.

References
Acku, A. (2000). Land and property disputes. doi:10.2458/azu_acku_pamphlet_hd860_6_z63_f65_2004
Bennett, J. (2015). Adverse possession: A Savannah Martin novel. Magpie Ink.
Bevan, C. (2018). 4. Adverse possession. Land Law. doi:10.1093/he/9780198789765.003.0004
Bouckaert, B. (2010). Property law and economics. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Buswell, H. F. (2019). The Statute of limitations and adverse possession: With an appendix containing the English acts of limitation.
Clarke, S., & Greer, S. (2018). 6. Adverse possession. Land Law Directions. doi:10.1093/he/9780198809555.003.0006
Marty, K. (2016). Adverse possession. Strategic Book Publishing Rights Agency.
Sayles, V. (2018). 8. Adverse possession. Law Trove. doi:10.1093/he/9780198815198.003.0008
Street, H. M. (2014). Adverse possession: Future interests: Adverse possession against Remaindermen. Michigan Law Review, 39(1), 141. doi:10.2307/1282920
Swope, D. M. (2011). Adverse possession: Requirements for obtaining title to a cave by adverse possession. Michigan Law Review, 37(2), 307. doi:10.2307/1281859

Order | Check Discount

Tags: 150-200 words discussion with a scholarly reference, 200-300 words response to classmate discussion question, 250 word analysis essay, bachelor of nursing assignments, case study, essay bishops website