Daily Development for
Thursday, August 14, 1997
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
ADVERSE POSSESSION; REQUIREMENT OF CONTINUITY; PRIVITY: Although claimant asserting title by adverse possession did have possession of the land in controversy, claimant failed the twenty-one year requirement because the claimant could not "tack" to prior possession where deed from prior possessor failed to mention the disputed parcel.
Moore v. Duran, 687 A.2d 822 (Pa.Super. 1997).
The court found that actual possession of a piece of farm land had been established since three sides of the land had been inclosed by a fence. In 1978, after the father had already satisfied the 21 year requirement, he transferred his farmland to his son, and failed to reference the disputed parcel.
Held: Although the land had been in the same family for 50 years, the son, in 1996, could not satisfy the 21 year requirement, since his deed did not convey the father's inchoate rights acquired by incompleted adverse possession. Each predecessor must have claimed title to the property in dispute, and in transferring to his successors must have purported to include it.
Comment 1: This decision departs from a rule applied in a number of cases that would view the intent of the parties, as demonstrated by the transfer of possession at the time of delivery of the deed, as sufficient to show that the adversely possessed property had passed. The "intent" rule is included in an old "chestnut" in Property casebooks, Porter v. Posey, 592 S.W.2d 844 (Mo. App. 1979).
Often it is the case, as here, that the grantor of property is unaware that the legal description he is using does not include certain property he believes to be his. It seems pointless, many years later, to require the grantor (or the grantor's estate) to establish adverse possession title when there is no question that the grantor intended to vest complete ownership of all property possessed in the grantee.
Comment 2: This case is particularly interesting because the appellate court went out of its way to strike down the reasoning of the trial court that support the trial court's conclusion that adverse possession had not been established because there was inadequate evidence of actual possession. After spending several pages criticizing the trial court's reasoning, the court goes on to affirm the result based upon this rather unwieldy rule.
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 Stacy Walter at the ABA. (312) 988 5260 or email@example.com
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. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.