Adverse possession

[1] It is sometimes colloquially described as squatter's rights, a term associated with occupation without legal title during the westward expansion in North America,[2][3] as occupying real property without permission is central to adverse possession.

recognizes that title may be acquired through thirty years of "continuous and uninterrupted possession which is peaceful, public, unequivocal, and as owner."

[citation needed] At traditional English common law, it was not possible to obtain title to property of the Crown by means of adverse possession.

[5] Adverse possession is one of the most contentious methods of acquiring property, albeit one that has played a huge role in the history of English land.

Provided the common law requirements of "possession" that was "adverse" were fulfilled, after 12 years, the owner would cease to be able to assert a claim.

In recent times the Land Registry has made the process of claiming adverse possession and being awarded “title absolute” more difficult.

But under schedule 6 of the Land Registration Act 2002, paragraphs 1 to 5, after 10 years the adverse possessor is entitled to apply to the registrar to become the new registered owner.

[20] Before the considerable hurdle of giving a registered owner notice was introduced in the Land Registration Act 2002, the particular requirements of adverse possession were reasonably straight forward.

Mr Powell lost his claim because simply letting his cows roam was an equivocal act: it was only later that there was evidence he intended to take possession, for instance by erecting signs on the land and parking a lorry.

In Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd v Walters and Others [2005] EWHC (Ch), the squatter cannot be found to have an intention to possess if they mistakenly believe that they are on the property with the permission of the title owner.

[25] Fourth, under the Limitation Act 1980 sections 29 and 30, the adverse possessor must not have acknowledged the title of the owner in any express way, or the clock starts running again.

In fact the land remained unused, Mr Pye did nothing, while the Grahams continued to retain a key to the property and used it as part of their farm.

They had in fact offered to buy a licence from Mr Pye, but the House of Lords held that this did not amount to an acknowledgement of title that would deprive them of a claim.

[26] The court in its Grand Chamber rejected this, holding that it was within a national government's margin of appreciation to determine the relevant property rules.

The party seeking title by adverse possession may be called the disseisor, meaning one who dispossesses the true owner of the property.

Good faith means that claimants must demonstrate that they had some basis to believe that they actually owned the property at issue.

All common law jurisdictions require that an ejectment action be brought within a specified time, after which the true owner is assumed to have acquiesced.

[49] Approximately eight years after the 2008 amendment, on 30 June 2016, the New York State Appellate Division, First Department (i.e., the appellate court covering the territory of Manhattan) determined the legal questions concerning the scope of rights acquired by adverse possession and how the First Department would treat claims of adverse possession where title had vested prior to 2008.

[50] The Court specifically held that title to the adversely possessed property vested when the plaintiff "satisfie[d] the requirement of the statute in effect at the relevant time.

Hudson Square Hotel also resolved two often highly litigated issues in adverse possession cases where the air rights are more valuable than the underlying land itself: (a) "where" (i.e., in three-dimensional physical space) is an encroachment required in order for such encroachment to have any relevant operative effect or consequences under the law of adverse possession, and (b) "what" property rights are acquired as a result of title to the ground floor area (i.e., the land) vesting with the plaintiff.

Thus a disseisor need not build a dwelling on, or farm on, every portion of a large tract in order to prove possession, as long as their title does correctly describe the entire parcel.

Such action will make it simpler to convey the interest to others in a definitive manner, and also serves as notice that there is a new owner of record, which may be a prerequisite to benefits such as equity loans or judicial standing as an abutter.

[53] Most cases of adverse possession deal with boundary line disputes between two parties who hold clear title to their property.

In some jurisdictions the term refers to temporary rights available to squatters that prevent them, in some circumstances, from being removed from property without due process.

One way tacking occurs is when the conveyance of the property from one adverse possessor to another is founded upon a written document (usually an erroneous deed), indicating "color of title."

A lawful owner may also restart the clock at zero by giving temporary permission for the occupation of the property, thus defeating the necessary "continuous and hostile" element.

Although "squatting" is a criminal offence in England and Wales under Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO),[57] the Court of Appeal has clarified that Section 144 will not bar a person who wants to claim adverse possession, based on the rule of ex turpi causa, from relying on illegal squatting as an act demonstrating possession of the property.

Finally, schedule 6 (para 7) of the Land Registration Act 2002 allows the successful adverse possessor to be registered as the new proprietor.

The first is that it exists to cure potential or actual defects in real estate titles by putting a statute of limitations on possible litigation over ownership and possession.

Otherwise, long-lost heirs of any former owner, possessor or lien holder of centuries past could come forward with a legal claim on the property.