a. Facts-
P and D had adjacent plots of land. D started building an addition to their
house and, in doing so, encroached upon P’s land by 15 inches. D claims the
encroached land belonged to her because she owned it by adverse possession
(statute of limitation properly tolled). P claims that no such adverse
possession exists because D did not exhibit “hostile” requirement for adverse
possession, as D did not intend to encroach on P’s land
b. Procedural
History- Trial Ct finds for P, Sup Ct of N.J. remands to lower Ct
c. Issue-
i.
Whether entry and continued possession
of land under mistaken beliefs satisfies the “hostile” requirement of adverse
possession
ii.
Whether D meets the requirement for
“open and notorious”
d. Holding-
Yes, entry and continued possession of land under mistaken belief does
constitute “hostile” condition of adverse possession. Mistaken belief (state of
mind) is irrelevant.
i.
Since the encroachment was so small, a
jury must find whether the P had actual knowledge of the encroachment
e. Rule-
Mistaken belief does not exclude the “hostile” condition to achieve adverse
possession. In order to be “open and notorious”, a minor encroachment must be
known by the true owner of the land
f. Rationale-
i.
If we consider the (small) encroachment
in this case to be “open and notorious”, then every land owner must be
constantly on watch for their property lines. This would put an undue burden on
every landowner
g. Notes:
i.
Maine Doctrine: said that you have to
have the “intention” to claim title to be able to claim it via adverse
possession
1. If
you’d known that it wasn’t on your land…it would’ve made a difference
ii.
Why does the Ct reject the Maine
Doctrine?
1. We
don’t want to be talking about subjective states of mind…if we can afford it
2. POLICY
argument: to NOT reward the person who, at first mistakenly possessed the land,
then later lied and said they knew they were “hostile”
iii.
If we’re going to allow adverse
possession, then we shouldn’t make it easy to adversely possess another’s
property
iv.
Possession: however the true owner would
use the land
1. Ie:
summer house only needs to be possessed during summer
v.
What is NOT “open and notorious” about a
big slab of concrete?
1. It’s
not about the physical slab of concrete…it’s about the boundary lines. Given
the fact that surveys are conducted infrequently, boundary lines may not always
be so clear
2. Ct’s
do not want owners to have the burden of always “knowing where their boundary
lines on”
vi.
What could the D say in defense?
1. Sorry,
but it’s only a small encroachment…it’s not much because he didn’t notice for
so long. If I give back possession now, I get screwed with half a side walk
2. If
you find against me, it’ll be unfair. It’s going be a little damage to them…but
way more damage to me
3. We
have ad possession to give force to the reasonable ad possession…I’ve gotten
attached to the property, why should the other elements matter?
vii.
There’s a difference between RIGHTS and
REMEDIES
1. D
is trespasser (occupying without permission)
2. What
should remedy be?
a. Generally,
stop trespass and pay damages
b. In
this case…this is not the right remedy because costs are so asymmetric.
Compensate for wrong done, after the fact. In this case….pay for the small
piece of land, rather than tear down the concrete steps
3. Some
States require the adverse possessor to pay taxes on the property (especially
on color of title). Why?
a. Because
this makes it easier for people with a lot of property to see who is paying the
taxes on the property. This ties into the “open and notorious” requirement
viii.
HYPO: what if somebody gives notice to P
that people are encroaching on their property. Is this notice “open and
notorious”?
1. Yes,
because it is the duty of the true owner to investigate
2. Any
notice of anything to lead to investigation is sufficient
ix.
HYPO: What if both parties make a
boundary…that really isn’t the real boundary? Real boundary is 15 inches…while
an encroachment of 1 inch takes place. What happens? What did they have to have
actual notice of? The actual encroachment, or the possibility of an actual
encroachment
1. If
the property owner had actual notice
x.
ESTOPPEL: legal doctrine that says: b/c
of certain facts, you may have certain legal rights…but we won’t let you insist
on them
1. Ie.
Estoppel applies where someone acted in reasonable reliance on your action/inaction
to their detriment. Ex. “yeah the boundary lines are there, don’t worry about
it”. Even if it turns out that it was on their property, you can still claim
estoppel…because they led you to make a mistake
2. You’ve
done something to lessen your legal rights
xi.
KNOW that there are 3 states of mind
that we can require under hostile claim of right
1. Know
that in most jurisdiction it is an objective standard
2. 4
Elements for adverse possession
a. Open
and notorious notice
b. Continuous
use up to the Statute of limitation
c. “hostile”
or use adverse to the owner’s rights
d. Actual
possession of the property
3. Just
make sure the adverse possessor is acting adversely to the claim of the true
owner
4. Notice
a. Being
told by another source is notice (inquiry notice)- you have reason to inquire
b. (actual
notice)
5. 3
theories of adverse possession
a. Sleeping-
punishes those who sleep on their rights
b. Reliance-
someone is relying on the land…its bogus to pull the rug from under their feet
c. Stability/Clarity/Certainty-
after someone has been living there for so long…it’s easier to avoid the
confusion and just give it to the adverse possessor…promotes certainty
6. Questions:
a. How
FAR does symbolic delivery go? Where do we draw the line???
4 (5) criteria for ad poss: hostility/occupying
inconsistent to the true owner’s rights, actual use, continuous possession,
(exclusivity), open and notorious
Majority view says that state of mind doesn’t
matter…so long as you intend to own the land
Minority bad faith view says that state of mind DOES
matter…ad poss MUST NOT be mistaken
Minority good faith view says that state of mind
matter…ad poss MUST ad possess out of good faith (mistake)
No comments:
Post a Comment