Van Valkenburgh (D) v. Lutz (P) (1952) (bad blood in Yonkers)

a.       Facts- P used a parcel of land for over 30 years. D then purchased said parcel at a foreclosure sale. P contended that they had claim of title via adverse possession. D denied claims. P sued D.

b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct found for P, appellate Ct affirmed. Sup Ct reversed.

c.       Issue- Whether P satisfied the conditions of adverse possession under ʃ 40. of N.Y. Civil Practice Act:

                                                              i.      Where the land has been protected by a substantial inclosure, OR

                                                            ii.      Where the land has been usually cultivated or improved

d.      Holding- No, P did not satisfy either conditions of adverse possession under ʃ 40. of N.Y. Civil Practice Act.

                                                              i.      Dissent: P did satisfy the condition of “usually cultivating or improving” the land. While he did not do so to the WHOLE plot of land, he did as much as a “reasonable” owner would have. There is no requirement that the whole plot must be cultivated or improved. Further, P’s neighbors came to call it “P’s farm”, and “Charlie’s house”.

e.       Rule- At the time of this case, adverse possession can only be shown by either:

                                                              i.      Protecting said land by an enclosure, OR

                                                            ii.      Usually cultivating or improving said land

f.       Rationale-

                                                              i.      P did not do enough to show that he was “in control” of the plot of land. By placing “rubbish”, “junk” and “personal belongings”, P did not show that he was “improving” said land.

                                                            ii.      Further, in a prior suit, P recognized that the plot of land did not belong to him (hostility)

g.      Notes:

                                                              i.      P is also missing “hostile” element

                                                            ii.      Is mental state important? NO

1.      If it’s being used productively…then no, mental state does not matter

2.      Most Ct’s do NOT take state of mind into account

3.      By throwing in the element of “State of mind”, we are compelling the fact-finder to go into the person’s head

a.       By having an objective standard, we are doing away with lots of mess

                                                          iii.      Why would you want to limit adverse poss. to only those w/ good faith

                                                          iv.      Not many GOOD policy arguments saying that we should reward aggressive trespassers

                                                            v.      Easement: a right to property that doesn’t deal w/ possession…usually deals w/ right of access to property. Same requirements for adverse possession…except you only get the right to use it, not stay there

                                                          vi.      According to Dissent, Lutz became the true owner way before by virtue of adverse possession. He was badly advised to go after the prescriptive easement

                                                        vii.      If you acknowledge that another is the true owner…then that negates your claim to adverse possession (NOT hostile)

                                                      viii.      What if Van V says, while statute of limit is tolling, “Stay in here for 12 months…but then get out”? What happens?

1.      No matter what legal relationship between the two…there is NO way Lutz’ staying there can be viewed as “hostile”…since he had permission to stay there

                                                          ix.      You must meet criteria of adverse possession for the WHOLE time…continuously, without a break

1.      Every break, the clock starts again