Adverse Possession and interest in the grantor

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
eastwardway
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:42 pm

Adverse Possession and interest in the grantor

Postby eastwardway » Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:48 pm

I am struggling with this question:

Presume the SoL is 10 years:

In 1991 A conveys 100 acres to B so long as it is used for farming. In 1999 C enters 10 acres of B's land. B farms land continuously until 2010 when he begins using it for a restaurant, but for some reason B doesn't notice C's presence (likely good-faith mistake).

When A's possibility of reverter kicks in in 2010, did C adversely possess the land against A as well as B?

I'm not wondering about the boundary line issues here, only as C's A.P. would run against A.

Thanks for the help.

jeanster
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:25 pm

Re: Adverse Possession and interest in the grantor

Postby jeanster » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:46 pm

No. A gets it all back. You can't adversely possess more than the title holder has. Don't overthink it.

Void
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:56 am

Re: Adverse Possession and interest in the grantor

Postby Void » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:55 pm

Future interests are immune from adverse posession, until they become present interests. In your hypo the statutory clock would reset when A took the property back.

Mr.Throwback
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: Adverse Possession and interest in the grantor

Postby Mr.Throwback » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:57 pm

Why?

Doesn't C gain superior title of the land he Adversely possessed? Granted, we haven't covered reverter.

Void
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:56 am

Re: Adverse Possession and interest in the grantor

Postby Void » Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:16 pm

Think about the reason we have adverse posession in the first place. Why should A lose out when he has no duty or expectation to look after the land while it's only a future interest to him.

Plus, it's just a black letter rule. Look up "adverse posession and future interests."

eastwardway
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:42 pm

Re: Adverse Possession and interest in the grantor

Postby eastwardway » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:55 am

Great. As I thought, but yes — definitely overthinking. On that note, is a fee simple determinable a lessor quantum of estate than a fee simple absolute? I would say yes, but on the other hand, they are both fee simple.

Void
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:56 am

Re: Adverse Possession and interest in the grantor

Postby Void » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:49 pm

eastwardway wrote:Great. As I thought, but yes — definitely overthinking. On that note, is a fee simple determinable a lessor quantum of estate than a fee simple absolute? I would say yes, but on the other hand, they are both fee simple.


I don't know whether it's a "lessor quantum" but it's not as good. One of the best tips I got from bar study is to think of fee simple determinable as a fee simple durational- you get a fee simple, but for a specific duration. Few simple absolute= you own it and can do whatever you want with it, for as long as you want.

F.S.D. = Bob owns blackacre for so long as he continues to farm wheat.

F.S.A.= Bob owns blackacre.

bdm261
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:19 am

Re: Adverse Possession and interest in the grantor

Postby bdm261 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:22 pm

As a side note, I think A's conveyance to B will be struck down and reformed to a FSA because requiring him to use the land for farming forever is a restraint on alienation, what if the land becomes urban in 100 years and is no longer suitable for farming?

Void
Posts: 857
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:56 am

Re: Adverse Possession and interest in the grantor

Postby Void » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:11 pm

bdm261 wrote:As a side note, I think A's conveyance to B will be struck down and reformed to a FSA because requiring him to use the land for farming forever is a restraint on alienation, what if the land becomes urban in 100 years and is no longer suitable for farming?


Nope. If this were true then all fee simple determinables would be struck down. The whole idea is "it's yours so long as X," or "until Y." If Y happens (or X doesn't) then A gets his reverter, if he wants it. There's no prohibition on this kind of interest just because Y is destined to happen or X can't happen forever. B is free to sell the interest he retains- likewise, if someone wants to buy the land subject to the condition that they only own it so long as B farms on it, they're free to do so.

Think about a life estate- if you have a life estate you can sell it to me, even though it CERTAIN that you will die within 100 years and I will have to give the land up at that point. But that's not a restraint on alienability.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nylon, zcallahan2277 and 1 guest