Response Paper 2: Property Possesion Case

The word adverse possession is a term used in real esate to describe taking of land, and not paying for it.

“Any dealing with the whole of the property requires the involvement of all the co-owners. We have seen that there is a general principle that it is impossible to give a greater right than you have yourself … nemo dat quod non habet” .

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

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.

Furthermore, it was found that the prohibition of use was a deprivation of any reasonable use for the parcels and eliminated the unrestricted right of use resulting in the parcels being rendered valueless. Lastly, the court determined that the parcels had in fact been “taken” by the Act and ordered that Lucas be paid just compensation in the amount of just over $1.2 million. Required compensation encompasses that the property owner to suffer a physical “invasion” of his property as well as denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land. The Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled that when regulations are in place to “prevent serious public harm”, id. at 383, 404 S.E.2d at 899, just compensation is not owed under the Takings Clause despite effect on property value. The court was unable to back the statue that construction of the two lots would threaten he public resource. Id. at 383, 404 S.E.2d at 898. The court reasoned that any regulations that deny a property owner of viable economic use of land constitutes regulatory deprivation requiring compensation. Due to Lucas having to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses for a common good and must leave the property useless then the owner had suffered a taking. It was argued that the owner’s view of deprivation of all economically beneficial use constitutes a deprivation in the

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.

Many people may debate whether or not the government should be able to take property by eminent domain for the public good. For instance the TransCanada Pipeline. Some may also debate whether or not it is an abuse of the 5thAmendment.

The argument defending the ordinance says that since Ambler stills holds the title to the land that this does not constitute as a taking of their land even though their land value may depreciate or have restrictions placed on it since their land is still under their

What this entails is that the actual sole physical occupation of the land with the intent to keep it solely for the person occupying the property must be establish. Lisa demonstrated this by construction a fence between her house and Danny’s. In fact, by doing this, she establish sole possession of the property in question. Once more, by fencing in the property, and the fact that Danny knew what she was doing because he lived next door and did not contest, showed Lisa was being open, visible, and notorious with her actions. She also was continuous and peaceable with her actions because during the fifteen years of usage, there were no issues with Danny, and he never complained that her actions were wrong. Only after fifteen years and a survey, did the ownership questions come up. Lastly, Lisa believed that the property was hers and never asked or obtained permission before erecting the fence. Since all the elements coexist, Lisa has a legal right to claim adverse possession to the property. Furthermore, the state has a statutory period for adverse possession of ten years. What this means is that Lisa must have occupied the property for the full statutory period, and this action must have coexisted with the other elements of adverse possession before the statute of limitations runs out. It was not until fifteen years later, and only after the survey, Lisa found out

A case to support my argument was Marion J. Dombkowski v. Edgar R, Ferland. “Ferland claims title to his property by virtue of a deed from the Estate of Doris Rood in 2001. In 1994, Dombkowski acquired his property from his brother Anthony. The Roods lived next door when Anthony purchased the property in 1964. The court declared Dombkowski the owner of the property and enjoined Ferland from procession of the property

State laws are constantly changing when meeting the criteria for Adverse Possession. Understanding these laws may seem daunting and anything but straightforward. Miscalculating the statutory period and possibly making a procedural mistake could costly for the client. Either the Adverse Possessor or abandoned landowner, the law exists to protect all involved.

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.

This does create the question of what happens when a person believes that the property was their own.

Your points are valid and analysis is solid. I also believe that Martin should have better used his time and resources to prevent all these legal problems. Much like you, I have the same conclusion with the eminent domain claim as the city overstepped their boundary in reference to North Carolina General Statues § 40A-3 (2014), (North Carolina General Assembly, 2014a).

We will begin with the definition of lost, misplaced, or abandoned property, and proceed to discuss the history of property ownership law, speculate on the reasons for