Adjuasement Case Studies

According to Ohio law, the person wanting to obtain title from adverse possession must have possessed the property for 21 years without the permission of the owner, but in clear knowledge of the owner ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). There are four requirements listed to obtain a quiet title starting with using the land without permission of the owner. Then they must treat the land as their own, use the land in an obvious way and for a continuous period of time without sharing with others ("Ohio Adverse Possession Laws"). Matt Daman easily completes all four of these requirements. He never asked Brad for permission to clear the land and build a barn on Brad’s land, but did. Brad repeatedly visited and inspected the property in 1986, 1996, and 2002, seeing the barn but never saying anything to Matt. Matt appears to have also used the land for a continuous period totaling 21 years before requesting title to the one acre of land. Brad may have a defense if he had talked to Matt at any time about the property and can prove it, but it will be a hard case to win for him. Matt will win this case for a quiet title to the one acre of land with his barn on it because of the time that had passed with no objection or other claims of possession by Brad.

7. The Taylors bought an ocean front lot in Oregon. The next year, Staley bought an ocean front lot south of the Taylors and built a home on it. Over the years, Staley often expressed concern that when the Taylors built their house, they could block her view. They said they would not. When they began planning their home, they asked Staley to submit a letter in support of a setback variance they sought. She said she would as long as her view wasn’t blocked. They again told her it wouldn’t be blocked. When the house was built, it partially blocked her view. She sued for breach of an

The Appellate Court reasoned that the Trial Court’s finding that the husband transferred the property to tenancy by the entirety solely to avoid a judgment creditor was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because

B. However these promotions and ideas were only a cover-up of that the “governor got them to sign a deed for their land without their knowledge”. The chief’s considerer it out of consideration to that it was not in their power to do any such thing without consent from other nations.

• Received 50 acres of land if own passage was paid. Received additional 50 acres if you paid for another person’s passage.

The main legal issue to examine regarding this case deals with encroachment, which is simply defined as: A possessory right to the property of another that may be acquired by the passage of time. Crockett has well documented existence of the woodlot property dating back over 20 years and was not met with objection on the part of the Smith, who is the true owner. Due to the fact that the plantiff left the defendant undisturbed for over 20 years, he lost his right to dispute to object the encroachment. Smith would have had to make his objections known regarding Crockett’s occupancy in the log cabin, constructed on his wood lot, many years earlier if he wanted to maintain his right to object.

1. The Mashpee Wamponoag lost their 1976 lawsuit seeking to reclaim approximately 16,000 acres that had previously belonged to them on Cape Cod. Which of the following was not true regarding the case?

In this case, Mr. Brandt had filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government for "the right-of-way crossing" his land had extinguished after the cessation of the railroad activity in the corridor. The Government had argued that this right was created by the Federal General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 and should be valid on the gounds that the railroad line was affirmed to be abandoned. While reviewing this case, it must be determined whether or not that the Government, under this Act, had retained an interest in the abandoned railroad right-of-way.

The plaintiff’s argument to why the third condition did not meet stated that on previous occasions Foster High School charged the public to hold events on the property. Therefore, the plaintiff states that because the school district has charged the public before to use the recreational space that it is not immune from the liability on the injury on the property.

The key point of contention in this scenario is the quitclaim deed with which Julio Gazpacho attempted to convey ownership of the easement to his neighbors, Ruben and Regina Gomez, because contrary to popular public belief, quitclaim deeds have at best a tenuous legal status within the state of Texas. In this case, rather than utilize a proper warranty deed to legally transfer title of ownership to the easement, Mr. Gazpacho elected to use a quitclaim deed that Texan legal precedent has universally deemed to be invalid. According to the landmark decision made in Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, "a quitclaim deed conveys any title, interest, or claim of the grantor in the real property, but it does not profess that the title is valid nor does it contain any warranty or covenants of title. Thus, a quitclaim deed does not establish title in the person holding the deed, but merely passes whatever interest the grantor has in the property" Diversified, Inc. v. Hall, 23 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). The fact that the only claim to title on the easement held by Ruben and Regina Gomez is made through the fundamentally flawed legal device of the quitclaim deed is crucial to properly deciding this case.

In Covert, the court concluded that the defendant was on a highway. Id. In Covert, the police patrolled the subdivision. Id. at 73. It can be inferred that the court reasoned that police patrolling of the area was important because police enforce public rules. Id. at 75. Mail delivery services delivered throughout the subdivision Id. at 73. It can be inferred that the court reasoned that delivery services having access was important because it shows that the streets where intended to be utilized by businesses. Id. at 75. Members of the public could freely drive onto the roads as desired. Id. at 73. The court reasoned that access by the public was important because it shows that the streets were intended to be utilized freely. Id. at 75. State issued street signs were present on the road. Id. at 72. It

Whereas, the District’s participation in this Agreement is not an admission of liability but is an attempt to bring closure to disputed issues; and

Yes. The third party possessor has a superior claim to the property than the subsequent purchaser in spite of the fact that the possessor has not recorded his deed to the property. The subsequent purchaser had sufficient constructive notice of the third party possessor’s after observing the possessor’s presence on the land. The subsequent purchaser’s constructive notice effectively eliminates his ability to evoke the bona fide purchaser affirmative defense at trail.

Fisher, the court stated that the subdivision streets were highways. Id. at 77. In the Covert case, the plaintiff was found to have been driving on a road that had state issued signage. Id. at 73. The court in the Covert case used the state issued signage to show that the streets were intended to be accessible by the public, this was important because roads that are not intended for the public to drive on do not require state issued signage. Id. The roads in the Covert case had mail delivered to them by the mail carrier by utilization of the roads. Id. The court in the Covert case reasoned that mail delivery vehicles utilizing the roads was important because a road that is utilized by the mail carrier can also be utilized by the public. Id. In Covert, public traffic was allowed entry and utilization to the subdivision roads. Id. The court reasoned that entry and utilization by public traffic was important because public entry and utilization shows that there was nothing restricting people from using the subdivision streets as a thoroughfare. Id. Therefore, the court decided that the plaintiff was driving on a highway because the public had free access and consistent usage. Id. at

Ernest’s claim is void, as he did not occupy the property continually. This is evidenced by the recognition of both Barney and Ernest of each other from the town where Barney worked.