Daily Development for Wednesday, October 20, 2004
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin Kansas City, Missouri firstname.lastname@example.org
ADVERSE POSSESSION; REQUIREMENT OF “CONTINUOUS; EFFECT OF LAWSUIT: In a case of first impression, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Appellate Division provided guidance on the meaning of “continuous” in the context of the Virgin Island’s adverse possession requirement that a person have continuous possession for 15 years before assuming title to real property.
DeCastro v. Stuart, 2004 WL 744194 (D. VI. 2004).
In 1974, DeCastro built a residence on land that belonged to Farrington. In May 1980, Farrington obtained a court order declaring that the DeCastro residence was built on land belonging to Farrington and ordering that DeCastro’s possession be terminated. (The specific cause of action was erroneous, according to the court, but it accepted the intended meaning of the earlier judicial order.) In June 1980, a deputy marshal entered the land with the intention of evicting DeCastro. The marshals, however, did not remove DeCastro from the land, and DeCastro remained on the land. Thus, the court order was not enforced.
DeCastro remained on the land. In 1993, in response to Farrington’s threat of further litigation, DeCastro agreed to purchase the land from Farrington in 1993. DeCastro made a down payment of $5000, which Farrington accepted, but DeCastro thereafter made no further payments and defaulted on the contract. In 1995, Stuart purchased Farrington’s interest in the land and attempted to remove DeCastro from the land. In response, DeCastro claimed that he had acquired title to the land through adverse possession.
The first issue was whether the May 1980 court order interrupted the adverse possession, even though the order was not enforced. The court held that the order did interrupt the continuous possession because court rulings should be given more weight than the physical acts of litigants in remaining on or leaving land. However, the court found that a new period of adverse possession began the day after the order and would continue until further action was taken.
The second issue was whether the marshal’s entry in June 1980 constituted further action that interrupted the adverse possession, even though DeCastro was not removed. The court held that, despite the marshal’s intention to evict DeCastro, there was an issue of fact as to whether DeCastro actually relinquished possession. Since the trial court’s finding that DeCastro had not relinquished possession was not clearly erroneous, the court found that the marshal’s entry did not interrupt the continuous possession that began in May 1980.
The final issue was whether DeCastro’s down payment in 1993 interrupted the adverse possession. Here the court found that Farrington’s agreement to sell the property along with Farrington’s acceptance of the down payment as partial performance meant that DeCastro had gained equitable possession to the land and was no longer an adverse possessor. Thus, DeCastro only had 13 years of continuous possession, which was insufficient for an adverse possession claim. However, since he had equitable possession, DeCastro was entitled to gain full title to the property by paying the remaining balance to the security possessor, Stuart.
Comment: As we don’t have the contract, and since the editor is unfamiliar with Virgin Islands law on the subject of installment contracts, it is difficult to say whether Stuart really should have been granted a right to declare DeCastro’s interest forfeit. Many jurisdictions treat such contracts as equitable mortgages and recognize an equity of redemption, such as the court did here.
The rest of the opinion is correct. Although certainly resistance to the order of a marshal sent to enforce a court order is wrong, there is no doubt that it is an act of adverse possession. In fact, there undoubtedly are courts that would hold that the simple entry of a court order awarding possession ought not to be treated as interrupting a running possession. The editor prefers the construction given by the court here, as it tends to push parties in these disputes toward the courtroom rather than the gun room.
Readers are encouraged to respond to or criticize this posting.
Items reported on DIRT and in the ABA publications related to it 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 provided and opinions expressed by the DIRT editor 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.
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious real estate professionals. Message volume varies, but commonly runs 5 - 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day. To subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
To cancel your subscription, send the message signoff DIRT to the address:
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 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 the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
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:
Members of the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate and Trust Law or of the National Association of Realtors can subscribe to a quarterly hardcopy report that includes all DIRT Daily Developments, many other cases, and periodic reviews of real estate oriented literature and state legislation by contacting Antonette Smith at (312) 988 5260 or email@example.com
To be removed from this mailing list, send an email message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the text SIGNOFF DIRT.
Please email email@example.com if you run into any problems.
See <http://www.umkc.edu/is/cs/listserv/unsubscribing.htm> for more information.