policy rationale of disability exceptions in adv. possession

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
dudnaito
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:16 pm

policy rationale of disability exceptions in adv. possession

Postby dudnaito » Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:45 pm

The only disabilities that matter are those that exist at the time the cause of action accrues. Therefore, if the statute specifies imprisonment as a legitimate exception then...

hypo: A owns property. B adversely possesses for one month. Jill goes to prison for 25 years. Statute of limitations is 21 years. Adverse possessor is now true owner.

I thought the policy rationale behind exceptions to adv. possession statute of limitations is to give sufficient time for the true owner to take action, but in a scenario such as this, 1 month is clearly not sufficient. So... what's the policy rationale then?

mbutterfly
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:17 pm

Re: policy rationale of disability exceptions in adv. possession

Postby mbutterfly » Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:13 pm

Even if A (i'm assuming that's Jill) became mentally incompetent after 1 month of B being an adverse possessor, the statute of limitations would not be tolled. It only matters if the disability is present at the very onset of the clock beginning to tick. The clock will continue to tick even if Jill is considered legally mentally incompetent for the rest of her life.

Basically, the law wants you to exercise your right as soon as possible, because when these rare events (imprisonment, life-long mental incapacity) happen, you will not have any recourse.

Here, even if Jill goes to jail for 25 years and the SoL is 21 years, she had that one month to exercise her right. The law cannot toll the statute for the owner's disability because the clock already began when the true owner reasonably should have known that she was being adversely possessed against.

Let me know if that answered your question, I don't think it did, but I can try again.

User avatar
dudnaito
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:16 pm

Re: policy rationale of disability exceptions in adv. possession

Postby dudnaito » Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:24 pm

honestly, not quite. Thanks, but i already knew what you just told me. I just don't understand the policy rationale. I understand that they want the true owner to get on it ASAP, but one month isn't sufficient in my mind especially considering that the open and notorious element of adv. possession can be quite iffy as to when such a thing starts, which is the policy rationale for why many statute of limitations are 20 years at times... cause it takes a while to notice some d-bag taking your land. It's only OPEN and NOTORIOUS after years, so it's very likely that the true owner imprisoned will not be aware of any adverse possession and no reasonable person would likely know.

With the disability of being a minor, the defense to such an argument would be that their guardians should bring suit in their name, but an imprisoned person who doesn't have anybody reliable to check on the status of their property will unfairly suffer i think. Heck, even if you did have someone reliable, what if that land of yours is somewhere out in the middle of the woods. You're not exactly gonna ask your buddy to check out that property over in yonder valley a 1000 miles away, no?

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: policy rationale of disability exceptions in adv. possession

Postby vamedic03 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:02 pm

dudnaito wrote:honestly, not quite. Thanks, but i already knew what you just told me. I just don't understand the policy rationale. I understand that they want the true owner to get on it ASAP, but one month isn't sufficient in my mind especially considering that the open and notorious element of adv. possession can be quite iffy as to when such a thing starts, which is the policy rationale for why many statute of limitations are 20 years at times... cause it takes a while to notice some d-bag taking your land. It's only OPEN and NOTORIOUS after years, so it's very likely that the true owner imprisoned will not be aware of any adverse possession and no reasonable person would likely know.

With the disability of being a minor, the defense to such an argument would be that their guardians should bring suit in their name, but an imprisoned person who doesn't have anybody reliable to check on the status of their property will unfairly suffer i think. Heck, even if you did have someone reliable, what if that land of yours is somewhere out in the middle of the woods. You're not exactly gonna ask your buddy to check out that property over in yonder valley a 1000 miles away, no?


Remember, there are always competing policies in the law.

Consider adverse possession in general. On one hand, we have the basic underlying goals of property that cut against adverse possession. But on the other hand, we have policy goals that cut in favor of adverse possession.

For example, we want to reward people who make efficient usage of the land and act like owners of land. We want to encourage owners to avoid sitting on their rights. There's a lot more policy goals, but these are just a few examples.

So, recognize that there are competing policies at play for the disability rule.

User avatar
dudnaito
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:16 pm

Re: policy rationale of disability exceptions in adv. possession

Postby dudnaito » Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:14 am

vamedic03 wrote:
dudnaito wrote:honestly, not quite. Thanks, but i already knew what you just told me. I just don't understand the policy rationale. I understand that they want the true owner to get on it ASAP, but one month isn't sufficient in my mind especially considering that the open and notorious element of adv. possession can be quite iffy as to when such a thing starts, which is the policy rationale for why many statute of limitations are 20 years at times... cause it takes a while to notice some d-bag taking your land. It's only OPEN and NOTORIOUS after years, so it's very likely that the true owner imprisoned will not be aware of any adverse possession and no reasonable person would likely know.

With the disability of being a minor, the defense to such an argument would be that their guardians should bring suit in their name, but an imprisoned person who doesn't have anybody reliable to check on the status of their property will unfairly suffer i think. Heck, even if you did have someone reliable, what if that land of yours is somewhere out in the middle of the woods. You're not exactly gonna ask your buddy to check out that property over in yonder valley a 1000 miles away, no?


Remember, there are always competing policies in the law.

Consider adverse possession in general. On one hand, we have the basic underlying goals of property that cut against adverse possession. But on the other hand, we have policy goals that cut in favor of adverse possession.

For example, we want to reward people who make efficient usage of the land and act like owners of land. We want to encourage owners to avoid sitting on their rights. There's a lot more policy goals, but these are just a few examples.

So, recognize that there are competing policies at play for the disability rule.


well.. yeah i understand that there are competing policies... i just don't get what the policy rationale is for THIS ONE... am I wording my question wrong? seriously? no offense.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, peger, sprinx and 10 guests