Law Students

Seasonal Adverse Possession

By Steve Pirates

I posed a question to my 1L tutants earlier in the question regarding adverse possession of a piece of property by two seasonal users unaware of each other. I posed the question, and then refused to answer it. Apparently this was annoying to some of the students.

I did not answer the question because I have not seen a case on point, and the material is not covered in their case book, so I didn’t have a ready answer that I knew to be accurate. I also did not answer the question because I wanted them to make arguments. I wanted them to get used to the idea that in law school, it’s the argument and analysis, not the conclusion that matter.

Well, now that the semester is over, here is my personal belief on the matter. Here’s a reduced version of the prompt.

Bob owns a large hilly plot of land with a lake. He leaves one day and never comes back. In January 1950, Steve shows up and decides that the land would make a great ski spot. So he builds a ski shack and uses it as a ski playground. He leaves in April when the season is over. In June 1950, Mark shows up and decides that the land would make a great fishing spot. He sets up shop in the ski shack. Mark leaves in October when it starts to snow.

The jurisdiction has a 30 year statutory period. It is now February 29, 2008. Steve and Mark run into one another. Bob also happens to show up. They all argue over who owns the land. They all go to court. Who wins?

My answer: Steve. Why? Because the element of exclusivity must be held against the “true owner” for the statutory period. The clock started in January of 1950. Bob never returned in 30 years. So, Steve satisfied exclusivity against Bob.

Mark, by contrast, never satisfies the exclusivity against Steve. Once Steve became the true owner of the land in in January 1980, and was on his land, he killed Mark’s exclusivity.

What do you all think?

Full post as published by Jolly Lawger on December 10, 2008 (boomark / email).