A homeowner was the owner of a house lot that abutted a beach owned by her neighbor. In 1972, the homeowner constructed a house on her land. During the summer of 1972, the homeowner fenced off the neighbor’s beach from abutting landowners so that it was only accessible from the homeowner’s property and the water. During the summer months from 1972 through 1993, the homeowner and her family regularly used the beach on the neighbor’s land for swimming and sunbathing. In the spring and fall, the homeowner used the beach for fishing. If other people tried to walk, sit, or fish from the beach, the homeowner told them to “Get off my beach.”
In the summer of 1988, the neighbor, who had not visited her property since 1972, used her beach on a regular basis, but made no effort to prevent the homeowner’s use of the beach in her customary manner. In 1989, the neighbor sold her property to a purchaser, who did not even set foot on the property until 1993. In that year, the purchaser brought an action of ejectment against the homeowner.
In that action,
A. The homeowner will prevail.
B. The purchaser will prevail only because the 1989 transfer of title interrupted the homeowner’s possession.
C. The purchaser will prevail only because of the neighbor’s joint possession in 1988.
D. The purchaser will prevail, either because the 1989 transfer of title interrupted the homeowner’s possession or because of the neighbor’s joint possession in 1988.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Answer C is correct. Adverse possession must be exclusive of the owner to ripen into title. Thus, if the owner goes into possession, the statutory period is terminated, even if the owner’s possession is short-lived and she does not eject the possessor. Here, the homeowner’s possession was not exclusive because the neighbor used the beach in the summer of 1988. Therefore, the statutory period terminated at that time. As a result, the homeowner will not be able to establish title by adverse possession because she did not adversely possess the property for a continuous 20-year period. Therefore, A is incorrect.
Answer B is incorrect. Although the purchaser will prevail, it will not be for this reason. The statute of limitations is not tolled by a transfer of title after possession has begun. Therefore, assuming the other requirements for adverse possession are met, the statute of limitations that first began to run against the neighbor continues to run against the purchaser. On the other hand, the neighbor’s joint possession of the property with the homeowner terminated the homeowner’s exclusive use of the property and, thus, terminated the running of the statutory period.
Answer D is incorrect. The purchaser will not prevail because of the transfer of title in 1989.
C, because the joint posession by neighbor destroys “exclusive” requirement of adverse possession. While homeowner was not sharing the beach with the public he was sharing it with the true owner in 1988, which destroys adverse possession. So A is wrong. B and D are incorrect because title transfer has no effect on adverse possession.
A is the answer because the neighbor had notice of the adverse possession but made no effort to prevent the homeowner’s use of the beach. Just because she was there and knowns what’s going doesn’t interrupt the running of adverse possession against her.
Answer is A. Open, notorious, and hostlie possession is satisfied during the statutory period of 20 years. Remember the fence.
I am going with C.
Answer is C. Common law adverse possession occurs after 20 years and must be without owner’s permission. Homeowner attempted to possess beginning 1972 and in 1988 (16 years later) Neighbor returned giving permission to Homeowner to use the land in her customary way granting Homeowner an easement. No adverse possession. So, A is wrong. Although Neighbor’s servient estate is conveyed to Purchaser, the easement does not automatically renew, and Purchaser didn’t set foot on property til 1993. It’s irrelevant because Neighbor’s permission granted an easement before the statutory period ran, and H no longer adversely possessed. B and D are wrong.
A.
Answer C.
C–Because of “tacking,” the years from the neighbor’s possession can be tacked on to the years of the purchaser’s possession (and thus, transfer of title would not interrupt the homeowner’s possession). But the joint possession of the homeowner and the neighbor destroys the “exclusive” element required for adverse possession.