Adverse Possession Quiz/Practice Page.... Forum

[introversional]

Post hypo's if you have em.... the more challenging the better. Amusing characters/scenarios encouraged, and please include any necessary assumptions needed to answer, or we'll just defer to the following:

Statutory period: 21 years
No longer a minor at: 18 years
Disabilities: Jail, Insanity, minor

[LAWYER2]

While I can appreciate your enthusiasm for AP, I say, Phuck all that. Lets just toss around some canned Hypo's:

Part I

In 1980, Grandpa died. Grandpa's will devised BLACKacre, the family farm, "to Jerry for life, then to Richard in fee simple absolute."

Jerry, who lived in another state and had no interest in farming, did not take possession of BLACKacre. Without getting permission from either Jerry or Richard, a neighboring farmer (Bob) simply began farming BLACKacre in 1982 and continued to do so every year until 2000, when Jerry sued Bob to recover possession of BLACKacre.

The state's statute of limitations for actions to recover possession of real estate is 10 years. Of the following statements, which reflects the most likely result of Jerry v. Bob?

A.
Jerry will prevail. Because Grandpa devised the farm to Jerry "for life," Jerry has a life estate in the farm and can recover possession at any time during his life.

B.
Jerry will prevail. One can only acquire title by adverse possession from someone who holds a fee simple absolute title.

C.
Jerry will lose, and cannot recover possession of the land from Bob.


Part II

Assume that in Jerry v. Bob, the court decided that Bob had been in actual, open, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession of BLACKacre since 1982, and thus that Jerry could not recover possession from Bob.

Two months after the court's judgment in Jerry v. Bob, Jerry died in a bizarre gardening accident. The next day, Richard files suit against Bob to recover possession of BLACKacre.

Which statement reflects the most likely result in Richard v. Bob?

A.
Bob wins, as he acquired title to BLACKacre by adverse possession as of 1992, when he had been in adverse possession for 10 years.

B.
Richard wins, as he held a remainder interest in BLACKacre and is thus entitled to possession of the land after Jerry's death.

[target]

Part I: Bob wins assuming he meets the actual, open, notorious, exclusive, notorious and continuous.
Part II: This is tricky, and I am at most the beginner at this. But I think Bob will win here as well. I recall reading somewhere that after one successfully adversely possess a land, the entire interest of the land goes to him, and subsequent transfers of the original owner are void.

OP: This is a great idea. I suggest making this a general property thread, so we can use this from now until Dec.

[TatteredDignity]

From my (also novice) understanding, Richard would win in part 2. Bob can only gain through adverse possession what Jerry had, which was title for life. A new statutory clock starts running when Richard inherits the land.

[LAWYER2]

While I can appreciate your enthusiasm for AP, I say, Phuck all that. Lets just toss around some canned Hypo's:

Part I

In 1980, Grandpa died. Grandpa's will devised BLACKacre, the family farm, "to Jerry for life, then to Richard in fee simple absolute."

Jerry, who lived in another state and had no interest in farming, did not take possession of BLACKacre. Without getting permission from either Jerry or Richard, a neighboring farmer (Bob) simply began farming BLACKacre in 1982 and continued to do so every year until 2000, when Jerry sued Bob to recover possession of BLACKacre.

The state's statute of limitations for actions to recover possession of real estate is 10 years. Of the following statements, which reflects the most likely result of Jerry v. Bob?

A.
Jerry will prevail. Because Grandpa devised the farm to Jerry "for life," Jerry has a life estate in the farm and can recover possession at any time during his life.

B.
Jerry will prevail. One can only acquire title by adverse possession from someone who holds a fee simple absolute title.

C.
Jerry will lose, and cannot recover possession of the land from Bob.


Part II

Assume that in Jerry v. Bob, the court decided that Bob had been in actual, open, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession of BLACKacre since 1982, and thus that Jerry could not recover possession from Bob.

Two months after the court's judgment in Jerry v. Bob, Jerry died in a bizarre gardening accident. The next day, Richard files suit against Bob to recover possession of BLACKacre.

Which statement reflects the most likely result in Richard v. Bob?

A.
Bob wins, as he acquired title to BLACKacre by adverse possession as of 1992, when he had been in adverse possession for 10 years.

B.
Richard wins, as he held a remainder interest in BLACKacre and is thus entitled to possession of the land after Jerry's death.

The first one was simple, however the second one through me for a loop.

Richard would retain possession because Bob only gained whatever rights Jerry (ORIGINALLY) had. So basically an Adverse Possessor can never achieve a better title than the original owner. Title is like a stream in that in can never rise higher than it's source.

[target]

The first one was simple, however the second one through me for a loop.

Richard would retain possession because Bob only gained whatever rights Jerry (ORIGINALLY) had. So basically an Adverse Possessor can never achieve a better title than the original owner. Title is like a stream in that in can never rise higher than it's source.

Damn, I know I would fall for part 2.

Would the answer be the same if Bob files for an official deed to the land before Richard's death? Can Richard still retain his future interest in the land?

[LAWYER2]

The first one was simple, however the second one through me for a loop.

Richard would retain possession because Bob only gained whatever rights Jerry (ORIGINALLY) had. So basically an Adverse Possessor can never achieve a better title than the original owner. Title is like a stream in that in can never rise higher than it's source.

Damn, I know I would fall for part 2.

Would the answer be the same if Bob files for an official deed to the land before Richard's Jerry's death? Can Richard still retain his future interest in the land?

(1) Jerry can only transfer the rights that he actually possesses which is possession of the land till death.
(2) Richard is only person who can waive or transfer his future interest in the property.


Now check this one out!!


Frank's Investment Property

In 1960, Frank (a resident of New York) purchased CALIacre, 5,000 acres of land in central South Dakota, certain that someday central South Dakota would become a vacation mecca and that the land would skyrocket in value. CALIacre remained undeveloped and Frank did not take possession of it.

In 1970, Lisa, who owned a ranch adjacent to CALIacre, was building a cattle fence along what she thought was the boundary between her parcel and CALIacre. By mistake, she put the fence in the wrong place and fenced in 4 acres of the CALIacre parcel along with her own land. Unaware of the mistake, Lisa thereafter maintained all of the land on her side of the fence, including the 4-acre portion of CALIacre.

In 1975, Frank died. His will devised CALIacre "to Jerry for life, then to Richard in fee simple absolute." Jerry did not take possession of CALIacre, as it was not suitable for development.

In 2000, Jerry died. Richard immediately filed suit against Lisa, seeking an injunction to force her to move the fence back to its correct location.

The state's statute of limitations for actions to recover possession of real estate is 10 years. Of the following statements, which reflects the most likely result of Richard v. Lisa?

A.
Richard will prevail, as he filed an action immediately after Jerry's death and the termination of Jerry's life estate.

B.
Lisa will prevail, as she has acquired superior title to CALIacre by adverse possession.

[target]

Frank's Investment Property


A.
Richard will prevail, as he filed an action immediately after Jerry's death and the termination of Jerry's life estate.

B.
Lisa will prevail, as she has acquired superior title to CALIacre by adverse possession.

Wouldn't this be similar to the prior case, in which one only holds the interest for life, and after that, it passes on to the next?

What would happen if Jerry transfers his interest to Richard b/c he doesn't want to pay taxes on the land, for example, but Jerry is still living? Would Richard have the cause of action then?

[LAWYER2]

I thought so too, until I figured out it turns on what Fee Simple Absolute means. We hadn't covered that yet in our classes

As soon as the adverse possessor has satisfied all of the necessary elements for the requisite period, the law of adverse possession vests the adverse possessor with the exact same quality of title as the owner held at the moment when the adverse possessor first took possession of the land.

Here, when Lisa took possession of the 4-acre portion of CALIacre, Frank owned a fee simple absolute estate. Frank may have subsequently attempted to divide ownership by conveying a life estate to Jerry and a remainder to Richard, but at that time Lisa had already started the running of the 10-year limitations period against Frank's fee simple absolute title. When neither Frank (1970-1975) nor Jerry (after 1975) sued to eject Lisa from the 4-acre portion of CALIacre prior to 1980, Lisa acquired fee simple absolute title to that land. Lisa thus has a title claim that is superior to Richard's, and Richard cannot now recover possession of the 4-acre portion in dispute.

[target]

Interesting. We haven't cover fee simple absolute nor adverse possession in our class, so now I wonder what is the difference between life estate and fee simple absolute.

I was guessing that Frank's imposing limitation on Jerry's ownership of the land to life estate made Jerry's ownership not fee simple absolute, therefore Lisa didn't adversely possess fee simple absolute from Frank and Jerry.

But your quoted explanation does make sense. These are good hypos.