>Daily Development for
Thursday, February 24, 2000
By: Patrick A. Randolph,
Jr.
Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
randolphp@umkc.edu
ADVERSE POSSESSION;
REQUIREMENT OF HOSTILITY; PERMISSION: Possession by remote grantee of party who
was presumed to possess permissively is not adverse, even if continued for over
100 years!
Pioneer Mill Company,
Limited v. Dow, 978 P.2d 727 (Hawaii 1999).
The subject property
suffered from an apparent lack of chain of title. Pioneer, the possessor from the year 1924 until present,
instituted a quiet title action based upon adverse possession. Pioneer, through
various intermediate transfers, succeeded John White in possession. Mr. White
had been appointed as one of the administrators of the original estate which owned
the property in fee simple. On February 5, 1867, the probate court discharged
Mr. White as administrator and accepted the original owner's will, in which
White, a relative, ended up with a one-half interest in the property. On
February 23, 1867, the court amended its decision and awarded the entire estate
to the heirs of the original owner. Mr. White, apparently, remained in
possession until 1880 when he conveyed the property to third parties. There
were a number of successive transfers for forty five years, until Pioneer
passed into succession of White's interest in 1925. Pioneer, the court
stipulated met all other requirements for adverse possession other than
hostility.
The question was whether,
on summary judgment, Pioneer had established that there were no material issues
of fact affecting its claim.
The court emphasized
Hawaii's special aversion to adverse possession claims. There is a strong presumption in all cases
against adverse possession.
The court first
established that there were issues of fact affecting whether White held
permissively. White was a relative, albeit a somewhat distant one. White had
been a cotenant of the property some eighteen years prior to the death of its
owner. And White, as stated, had been an administrator of the property and
thereafter, for a time, declared to be a one half owner of the property. The
court concluded that, all put together, these facts gave rise to an inference
that White was on the property permissively. In fact, the court held that as a
matter of law a party whose ownership claim is rebutted by an adverse judgment,
and who remains on the property, is presumed to be there permissively.
The court appears to
assume that if White, Pioneer's predecessor in interest indeed had been in
permissive possession, all successors in interest would also be considered in
permissive possession. Even through over 100 years of possession.
Comment 1: Apparently the
issue came to light when Pioneer realized that it could not establish clear
title into White, and had a need to clear title. It brought a quiet title action and the heirs of the original
owner noted the newspaper announcement of the action and reacted with the
claims now being litigated.
Comment 2: The question of whether permission extends
beyond the first permittee is an interesting one, as to which there is not
general agreement. In Miller v.
Anderson, 955 P.2d 846 (Wash.App. 1, 1998), (the DIRT DD for October 12, 1988),
a case which the court describes as an adverse possession case but may be an
easement case, a Washington court held that permissiveness ends with the death
of the permittor. The court, however, rejected Pennsylvania authority holding
that permission is purely personal on both sides, and ends with the death of
the permittee or permittor. In attempting to review the opinion in Miller for
purposes of this note, the editor has discovered that Miller v. Anderson has
been withdrawn from publication.
Examples of the
Pennsylvania authority (based upon Westlaw search) standing for the principle
described in the summary of Miller, supra, include Sterner v. Freed, 570 A.2d
1079 (Pa. Super. 1990) and Orth v. Werkeiser, 451 A.2d 1026 (Pa. Super. 1982). Both
are easement cases, and Orth cites to New Jersey authority that suggests that a
permissive easement ripens into a hostile, prescriptive claim following death
or transfer because it is born of a license which is by its nature not
transferrable. Thus, permission dies with transfer.
The Pennsylvania cases
involve prescriptive easements, not ownership claims. Although the requisite character of use
resulting in title by adverse possession is more extensive than use that can
create a prescriptive easement, it must be admitted that when verbal permission
is granted, even for this more extended use, it technically should be
considered a mere "license" which, unless expressed otherwise, is merely
personal and not transferrable. Comment
3: The editor assumed that he was just missing something in his basic training,
and that this issue has been fully litigated and discussed. So off he went to look up the rule in the
treatises. At least on a cursory examination, neither the American Law of
Property, AmJur, Powell on Real Property or Thompson on Real Property (Thomas
ed) specifically discuss this issue. They appear to assume that transfer of the
permitted party's interest does not void the permission. But it is hard to know
for certain, as there is no specific discussion of the issue.
Are there DIRTers who can
give us some authority on the point? If not, then this may be a pretty good
case for the casebooks.
Readers are urged to respond, comment, and argue with the daily
development or the editor's comments about it.
Items in the Daily Development section generally are extracted from the
Quarterly Report on Developments in Real Estate Law, published by the ABA
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law. Subscriptions to the
Quarterly Report are available to Section members only. The cost is nominal.
For the last six years, these Reports have been collated, updated, indexed and
bound into an Annual Survey of Developments in Real Estate Law, volumes 1‑6,
published by the ABA Press. The Annual Survey volumes are available for sale to
the public. For the Report or the Survey, contact Maria Tabor at the ABA. (312)
988 5590 or mtabor@staff.abanet.org
Items reported here and in the ABA publications are for general information
purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or
in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data and
opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no
sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a source that is readily
accessible by members of the general public, and should take that fact into
account in evaluating confidentiality issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an Internet discussion group for serious real estate professionals.
Message volume varies, but commonly runs 5 ‑ 10 messages per workday.
Daily Developments are posted every workday.
To subscribe to Dirt, send an e-mail to:
|
To: |
ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu |
|
Subject: |
[Does not matter] |
|
Text in body of message |
Subscribe Dirt [your name] |
To cancel your subscription to Dirt, send an e-mail to:
|
To: |
ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu |
|
Subject: |
[Does not matter] |
|
Text in body of message |
Signoff Dirt |
For information on other commands, send the message Help to the listserv
address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named “Brokerdirt.” But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you
subscribe to Brokerdirt, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
Brokerdirt carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to Brokerdirt, send an e-mail to:
|
To: |
ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu |
|
Subject: |
[Does not matter] |
|
Text in body of message |
Subscribe Brokerdirt [your name] |
To cancel your subscription to Brokerdirt, send an e-mail to:
|
To: |
ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu |
|
Subject: |
[Does not matter] |
|
Text in body of message |
Signoff Brokerdirt |
DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association Section on Real Property,
Probate & Trust Law and the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School of
Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor
of Law, UMKC School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants permission for
copying or distribution of Daily Developments for educational purposes,
including professional continuing education, provided that no charge is imposed
for such distribution and that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at: http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/