Adverse possession, as used in land law, refers to a legal theory in which a person who possesses the land that is owned by another person can become owner after meeting some requirements for some time (Qiao, 2015) . On this case, individual trespasses on real property that somebody else owns and can end up acquiring a valid title of the property if only they meet some requirements.
Adverse possession only applies if it meets some requirements. Firstly, the possession must be continuous over some time (Malone, 2018). This implies that the adverse possessor should make reasonable use of the property continuously for some time without any interruptions. As for the case in question regarding Lisa and Danny, Lisa is the adverse possessor because her gazebo has continually been on Danny’s land for over fifteen years without interruption. Secondly, according to Malone 2018, the adverse possessor must be in actual possession of the property in question. This means that they are physically on the property and even putting it to use at the time of the dispute. For Lisa’s case, she was in actual possession of the said property because she had a gazebo on it and had even made a fence around it.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Another condition is that the trespasser is open and notorious about the property. The term “open and notorious” as used in law implies that the trespasser does things that the actual owner can notice on the property (Qiao, 2015) . For example, building a gazebo and even fencing it as is the case in Linda and Danny’s situation.
Exclusivity of ownership is another requirement for adverse possession of the property. In this case, the trespasser owns the farm alone, and the real owner is not anywhere in the picture. This fact of possessor’s sole use of property can be used to uphold a claim on adverse possession.
In claims of adverse possession, the trespasser often has a defense. This is because sometimes the court ends up ruling in their favor if the title to the property is in dispute and the trespasser meets all legal requirements in the law. In the case of Lisa and Danny, Lisa has a defense and can win her case in a court of law. Some of the arguments would include the fact that the actual owner of the property was lazy and had no regard for their property for a long continuous period. Additionally, according to Qiao 2015, the fact that the adverse possessor has investments on the property and has taken care of it for all the time when the real owner had no regard for it can favor the trespasser. These two points could justify the shift of ownership of a property from the right owner to the adverse possessor. If Danny knew all along that the property on which the gazebo sat was his, and the fence was visible to him, why did he not begin to rent the piece to Lisa? In the absence of permission for the trespasser to use the property, he/ she stands a chance to win the case against the actual owner, and the property can then transferred to the trespasser.
In conclusion, it is vital for landowners to be aware of their properties and to make active use of them (Malone, 2018). In the case that they cannot use the land, they should legally permit another person to use it. This will prevent the possibility of tenant winning a suit of adverse possession in court. In Danny and Lisa’s case, their state has an adverse possession of ten years, and it means the time had long expired for Danny to lay claim on his land. This is because Lisa had been taking care of it for more than fifteen years and had even made a fence around it. Therefore, when official records of a property do not match the reality on the ground, adverse possession can validate disputed land titles.
References
Malone, D. D. (2018). Applying the Doctrine of Adverse Possession to Copyright Law: A Call for Economic Efficiency, Certainty, and Fairness through Legislative Reform. Drake L. Rev. , 66 , 955.
Qiao, S. (2015). Small property, adverse possession, and optional law. Law and Economics of Possession .
