...A Squatter – friend or foe? On the 1st of September 2012, England and Wales passed legislation criminalising all acts of squatting, subjecting squatters to arrest, fine and imprisonment. Will Ireland follow in this direction? At first glance, it seems that there are no rationales to the law of adverse possession and that squatter’s rights fly in the face of common sense, depriving the ordinary citizen of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property and granting to the squatter an undeserved benefit. The potential abuse of this right is that which motivated the change of legislation in the UK. However the position of the Irish courts is to look more closely at the rights, and analyze their effect within a rural Irish setting. It appears that within this setting, adverse possession does in fact, indirectly benefit the community in which the squatter resides. Nevertheless, it is accepted that rights of adverse possession are open to abuse. In attempting to discourage potential abuse, the law provides that a squatter must be in uninterrupted possession of private property for a minimum of twelve years before ownership rights can be claimed. The law also recognises all acts of interruption by or on behalf of the owner, no matter how slight, as sufficient in order to restart the twelve year clock running again as against the squatter. For example, acts of painting doors, fences, entering with a key and gardening. In this regard, only property which has been absolutely...
Words: 778 - Pages: 4
...Carrie Allard Real Property Assignment 1 Issue The issue that arises in regards to Alan and Bart’s situation is whether or not Bart is liable to pay the reward he offered for his lost property even though Alan found the property beforehand and may have a pre-existing duty to return the property. Under Oregon law, does Bart have to pay Alan a reward for finding Bart’s lost property before Bart offered the reward? Rule In MacFarlane v. Bloch, 59 Ore. 1, 115 P. 1056, 1911 Ore. LEXIS 98 (Or. 1911), the plaintiff found a pocketbook with promissory notes made out to the defendant owner. At first, the plaintiff did nothing to locate the owner but search the ‘Lost and Found’ section of the paper. The defendant then offered a reward of $100 for the pocketbook to which the plaintiff came forward and the defendant’s agent refused to pay. The court awarded the plaintiff the reward money with Mr Chief Justice Eakin stating, “the finding of the book was not the purpose of the offer,” it was the return of the book and the plaintiff complied. ORS § 98.005 states if a person finds goods or money valued at $250 or more, he or she must give notice in writing to the clerk of the county within 10 days and within 20 days post notice in the general newspaper of the area in which the goods or money was found and if no such owner comes forward in 3 months, the finder is then deemed the owner. Analysis If Alan found Bart’s object, and in good faith, held on to it until he could locate the...
Words: 470 - Pages: 2
...Mildred does not want to get into a fight, but at the same time, she does not want Cliff to permanently keep the 3 feet of property that belong to her. So, she came to your firm to ask advice. Mildred has a deed that clearly shows that she received title to the 3 feet in question through a deed executed over 40 years ago. Cliff, of course, will argue that he acquired the 3 feet via adverse possession. Neither Cliff nor Mildred can remember exactly when the fence was put up and neither party can remember what was done with that space before the fence was put up. It is apparent that this case will come down to who has the burden to prove what because it's apparent that neither party can prove much of anything except that Mildred has her deed and all parties agree that the picket fence has been up for several years. Your supervising attorney asks you to draft an essay, citing relevant Ohio law where applicable, explaining who has the burden to prove what in this case and which party is likely to prevail. Please do so. Issue- The issue at hand is whether Cliff can prove adverse possession for the 3 feet of land in question under Ohio law against Mildred. Rule- Wechter v. Franklin, C.A. No. E-78-38, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District, Erie County, 1979 Ohio App. LEXIS 10401, August 24, 1979. In this case there were two property owners who were fighting over boundary lines and the title to the boundary line was found to be quieted to the owner who had color...
Words: 845 - Pages: 4
...the rules of adverse possession of the land acquired by the Garber family. Rules For this case, Wyoming Adverse Possession rule needs to be fully interpreted. Adverse possession is when a person wrongfully possesses someone else’s land if certain statutory requirements are made. If the elements of adverse possession are met, the adverse possessor acquires the title to the land. The possessor will be given a clear title as long as the statutory time period is met. In Wyoming all adverse possession rules must be met. Analysis Based on the evaluation of the facts, the Garber family has claimed this land by adverse possession. The Garber family acquired their 80 acres of land by warranty deed; this deed was recorded with the state. This land had been enclosed by a fence for more than 50 years. The Garber’s ownership of this property for more than 10 years establishes a statutorily prescribed period of time. The fence established an area that was used to graze cattle and produce hay. Therefore, the Garber family established actual and exclusive ownership of the property. The land was physically occupied and used by the Garber family. The use of this land was continuous and uninterrupted during the time before the Doenz family acquired the adjacent property. Although the Garber’s had not been paying taxes on the land they acquired, this does not void the claim on adversely possessed land. Therefore the Garber’s have acquired the title through the adverse possession statute legally...
Words: 386 - Pages: 2
...Adverse possession: Nolen v. Rase, 2013-Ohio-5680 (Ohio Ct. App., Scioto County Dec. 17, 2013) To acquire title by adverse possession, a party must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, exclusive possession and open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use for a period of twenty-one years. Nolen v. Rase, 2013-Ohio-5680, P9 (Ohio Ct. App., Scioto County Dec. 17, 2013) we readily conclude that ample evidence supports a finding of adverse possession for the requisite twenty-one years. Debra Rase testified that she and her husband maintained the land up to the fence line since they acquired the property in 1987. We readily acknowledge that Carl Nolen testified that he maintained his property on the other side of the boundary line after the fence's [**6] construction. However, the opposing witnesses disputed that assertion. [*P13] HN4A trial court, as the trier of fact, is free to believe all, some or none of the testimony of any witnesses. Nolen v. Rase, 2013-Ohio-5680, P12-P13 (Ohio Ct. App., Scioto County Dec. 17, 2013) we find no error in the trial court's ruling regarding the boundary of the two properties. Accordingly, we hereby overrule both of appellants' assignments of error and affirm the trial court's judgment. | The doctrine of acquiescence is applied in instances when adjoining land owners occupy their respective propereties up to a certain line and mutually recognize and treat that line as if it is the boundary that separates their properties...
Words: 863 - Pages: 4
...ORC Ann. 2305.04 In a claim for adverse possession, the intent to possess another’s property is objective rather than subjective, and the legal requirement that possession be adverse is satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that for 21 years the claimant possessed property and treated it as the claimant’s own To acquire title by adverse possession, a party must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, exclusive possession and open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use for a period of twenty-one years The doctrine of adverse possession protects one who has honestly entered and held possession in the belief that the land was his own, as well as one who knowingly appropriates the land of others for the purpose of acquiring title A grantee in a deed, who takes immediate and exclusive possession and control of a tract of land adjoining property conveyed by such deed, but which tract was omitted therefrom by mutual mistake, and who openly possesses and controls such tract of land continuously, exclusively and adversely for more than 21 years, becomes vested with title thereto In a case of adverse possession, the statute of limitations is tolled and, thus, the chain of continuity is broken, when the true holders of title cause the disputed property to be surveyed and, subsequently, inform the adverse claimants, through an agent of the true holders of title, that the property in question in fact belongs to the true holders of title Fences Regardless of who erected...
Words: 280 - Pages: 2
...11 July, 2011 Word count - 2380 1 (a) With regards to the European Court of Human Rights decision in J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. The United Kingdom (Application No. 44302/02) 30 August 2007, and the Court of Appeals decision in Emmanuel Ofolue v. Erica Bossert [2008] EWCA Civ 7; discuss the extent to which the provisions of the European Conventions on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, have impacted the doctrine of adverse possession in England & Wales. I will discuss the cases and the impact which the HRA 1998 and the ECHR have had on the decision making process within the courts with regards to the doctrine of, “adverse possession”, in the UK. Rationale of Adverse Possession in England and Wales. The rationale of adverse possession in England and Wales is that; i. There must be a demarcation in reality on the recognition of claims of ownership of property title. ii. As land is finite and therefore a precious commodity then it should be used to its full potential. The common-law doctrine of adverse possession, gave rise to the ease of appropriation of land ownership by squatters/trespassers. In J.A Pye v Graham, Pye were dispossessed of their title to land via a HOL/Supreme court decision, Pye v Graham [2002] UKHL 30, based upon the legislation within LR Act 1925 and Limitations Act 1980. In particular section 75 of LR Act 1925 transferred the title of land to the factual possessor, (Graham) . In J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd v. The United...
Words: 3303 - Pages: 14
...Plaint had permission to use the property as a matter of neighborly accommodation. In Clarke v. Clarke, the court held that use of the land as a matter of neighborly accommodation is a question of fact, and that the law will presume the land in question belongs to the owner and was used by permission or silent acquiescence. 133 Cal. 667, 670 (1901). This presumption is overcome by evidence of hostile or adverse use of the property. Id. The ranchers can assert that Mr. Plaint used the property with permission. Mr. Plaint’s use of the property does not appear to be adverse or hostile as required by Clarke. He used the property as any other member of the public would. He used the property recreationally and did not establish a claim to the property. This defense is similar to the defense regarding individual claims. This defense is likely to succeed because the ranchers never objected to Mr. Plaint's use of the trail. It is unlikely that Mr. Plaint will succeed in an individual action against the ranchers. Mr Plaint's claim based on the same facts as the Hiking Club’s action for public easement by implied dedication. The ranchers will likely prevail against Mr. Plaint’s claim by asserting the defense that Mr. Plaint shared...
Words: 1995 - Pages: 8
...Predominantly within the post-modern, American context the "good life" is understood as the freedom and ability to do or posses whatever we want; a complete lack of nothing but the ability to posses anything one might desire. However, in Robert Neuwirth's book "Shadow Cities" readers are introduced to multiple people groups, more commonly known as "squatters", who's lifestyles and beliefs challenge what many might consider the good life as generally accepted by members of Western civilization. As Neuwirth takes us from Rocinha, Rio De Janeiro to Istanbul the reader is continuously faced with the same three issues plaguing our world: the fact that the worlds population is steadily increasing at an alarming rate, that everyone must have a place to live and that housing costs and must be lowered in order to provide the amount of houses necessary to sustain our world's growing population (Neuwirth xiii). In this paper I will seek to summarize Neuwirth's book, "Shadow Cities", beginning with a brief history of the squatter community. When comparing past and present examples of squatter communities Neuwirth begins by noting that, "very little has changed since the Middle Ages. The barracks of Rocinha, the mud huts of Kibera, the wooden shanties of Behrampada, or the original Gecekondu houses in Sarigazi are not far removed the dwellings that were common centuries ago in Europe and North America." With very little difference between communities of the past and present it becomes apparent...
Words: 1052 - Pages: 5
...What does the doctrine of adverse possession provide? In its most basic sense, “adverse possession” is a legal doctrine that allows a person to acquire legal ownership of property that he treats as his own, if he does so for a long enough period of time, even though the property is not his own. In other words, a person who uses another person’s property, without permission, for a long enough period of time, can acquire legal ownership of that property. What elements need to be proven? 1. The statutory period of time of possession. In most states, this period is between 10 and 20 years. 2. Open, visible, and notorious. The adverse processor must physically occupy the property so as to put the owner on notice of the possession. 3. Actual and exclusive - the property must be occupied by the adverse possessor. The planting of crops, grazing of animals, or building of a structure on the land constitutes physical occupancy. 4. Continuous and peaceful. The property cannot be taken by force from the owner and the statutory period of time of possession must be continuous. 5. Hostile and adverse. The property must be occupied by the possessor without expressed or implied permission of the owner. Did the Witts act ethically in claiming title to someone else’s land? Team C had differing opinions regarding whether the Witts actions were ethical or not. The group agreed that the Witts proved adverse possession under the state law and should be allowed to retain the property...
Words: 535 - Pages: 3
... With each circumstance, Barney should be able to see clarity in his situation with the legal advice of an attorney to review with him his options based on Statues of North Carolina law. Facts Barney has various assets in his possession. He is an owner of mountain property, a beach house, and antique collector’s car. Barney has four separate legal issues he is bringing to the attention of an attorney. The first dispute is with the son of a business partner of Barney’s. Barney owned some mountain property with 3 other co-owners. The property was purchased as joint tenants with right survivorship. All the other co-owners have passed on. One co-owner has willed his portion to his son who took out a personal loan against his “supposed” portion of the mountain property. Next dispute is with a man who has been living at the mountain property for two decades and is claiming the property is his. Then after visiting his beach property, Barney, discovered that the town had seized his property, to begin allow construction begin on a resort. Lastly, his 1963 Ford Galaxy, was stolen after a scheme to set up a fake valet service up in front of the restaurant Barney was dining at. He does locate the vehicle at a Classic Car Show. The man in the possession of the vehicle refuses to give him back his vehicle till he is reimbursed for his purchase. Mountain Property As an attorney...
Words: 1643 - Pages: 7
...ADVERSE POSSESSION LAWS DO NOT APPLY TO LAND GRANTS THAT WERE ISSUED BY THE SOVERNITIES OF SPAIN AND MEXICO AS TREATIES ENTERED INTO BY THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS (AS IS THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE-HIDALGO) are considered Supreme law by the Constitution of the United States of America Bert Lucero, Trustee, LTLGA, 2 March 2007 After three centuries as Sovereign, the Government of Spain relinquished all Spanish claim in the Americas to a new Sovereign, “Mexico” via the Treaty of Cordova, 28 September 1821. Property rights were honored IAW (in accordance with) Las Siete Partidas and the International Law of Conquest. Land Grant ownership, management and operations were allowed to continue in the same manner as under Spanish Rule (Land Title Study, Koch, et al). The following year, on 24 February 1822, all of Mexico’s inhabitants, within its borders, were declared “Free and Equal Citizens” via the Plana de Iguala. “...that all the inhabitants of New Spain, without distinction, whether Europeans, Africans or Indians are citizens of this monarchy, with the right to be employed in any post, according to their merits and virtues”. “... the equality of civil rights to all the free inhabitants of the empire, whatsoever may be their origin in the four quarters of the earth”. The United States of America (created in 1776), enacted Indian Intercourse Act of 1834 (Manifest Destiny), wherein it...
Words: 2309 - Pages: 10
...Home Work – Oil & Gas Accounting Page 33 & 34 Question 5 • Economic interest in oil and gas: After an E&P company has identified an area with potential, the company will seek to acquire the right to explore, develop, and produce any minerals that might exist beneath the property, unless it already holds this right. This right, along with the right to simply share in proceeds from the sale of any minerals produced, is referred to as mineral interest or an economic interest. • Mineral rights U.S law assumes that for ownership purposes, the surface of a piece of property can be separated from minerals existing underneath the surface. When a piece of land is purchased, one may acquire ownership of the surface rights only, the mineral rights only, or both rights. • Mineral interest Is an economic interest or ownership of minerals-in-place, giving the owner the right to share of the minerals produced either in-kind or in the proceeds from the sale of the minerals. • Royalty interest This type of mineral interest is created by leasing. The royalty interest is retained by the owner of the mineral rights when that owner enters into lease agreement with another party. • Working interest This interest is created via leasing and is responsible for the exploration, development, and operation of a property. The working interest is responsible of paying all 100% of the cost. • Overriding royalty interest Is a nonworking interest...
Words: 409 - Pages: 2
...Personal Property Case Study The case study “Parking Lot’s Liability” is an actual court case, Allright, Inc. v. Strauder. Plaintiff brought suit alleging that as a result of defendant's negligence, his automobile was stolen from a parking lot operated by defendant. Signs were located throughout the parking lot which stated that the lot closed at 6 o'clock p.m. and that anyone returning after that time could pick up their keys at another parking lot operated by the defendant at a another location. He was aware of the time when he left the car at the station and that the signs and the claim ticket said the lot closed at 6 o'clock. So indeed a bailment was created. The definition of bailment is a transaction in which an owner transfers his or her personal property (in this case his car) to another to be held, stored, delivered, or for some other purpose. Title to the property does not transfer. (Cheeseman, 2010) The plaintiff gave his keys to the defendant’s employee expecting the defendant’s company to park and store the car until the plaintiff returned for it, at which time the plaintiff would pay for the services obtained. This is considered a mutual benefit bailment. A bailment for the mutual benefit of the parties is created when there is an exchange of performances between the parties. A bailment for the repair of an item is a bailment for mutual benefit when the bailee receives a fee in exchange for his or her work. (legal-dictionary.com, 2013) Three elements...
Words: 680 - Pages: 3
...1. Should Trans-Share account for the sale of the fractional interest in the airplane according to ARC 840 (Accounting for Leases) or ARC 606 (Revenue Recognition for Customer Contracts)? Provide citation and explain in your own words. Based off the Codification, Trans-Share should account for the sale according to ARC 606. Citing 840-10-1, a criteria for lease classification is derive from the transfer of all substantial benefits and risks incidental to the ownership of that property. What this means is that unless the buyer (lessee) assume all significant risks and rewards, the criteria for a leash has not been met. In addition to that 840-15-6, state arrangements that qualify as leases. Under these arrangements, it is hard to consider (but not impossible) the sale of the fractional interest as a lease. 15-6 revolve around the concept of the “right to control”. What can the lessee do to the aforementioned property, do they have to follow guidelines, and is there anyone else who might have more than a minor output on the property? In the Trans-Share case, Trans-Share control and maintain virtually all aspects of the plane, with the buyer only dictating flight hours when available. In addition to that the purchaser lack any significant input on Trans-Share’s policy and cannot in any way deviate from them. The last part of 15-6 deal with whether or not other parties excluding the purchaser (the 7 other buyers as well as Trans-Share customer) will take more than a minor output...
Words: 266 - Pages: 2
