Adverse Possession Research Articles

Towards a Redefinition of Squatter Rights: Adverse Possession in Ghana and the United Kingdom

Abstract A squatter may under certain circumstances extinguish the title of the registered proprietor and obtain good title. Many arguments have been made for and against these extensive rights. The broad consensus appears to be that in relation to registered land, there is less justification for it. The English Land Registration Act 2002 substantially modified the effect of adverse possession on registered land making adverse possession inapplicable to registered lands. Under Ghana’s new land law; Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036), except for public lands, a claim in adverse possession can defeat title to land whether registered or unregistered. This feature of Ghana’s land law appears unsatisfactory in light of the policy justifying land title registration. Using a comparative approach, this work evaluates adverse possession law in Ghana and England within the context of its objectives. The work established that the current regime on adverse possession does not effectively promote the objectives of land registration and requires reform.

Adverse Possession Laws: A Comparison Between Taxation Law and Property Law

This paper explores the intricate relationship between taxation and adverse possession, focusing on the implications for government revenue. Adverse possession allows individuals to claim legal title to property after continuous, open, and hostile occupation for a statutory period, while taxation ensures that property owners contribute to government finances through property taxes. The interaction of these legal frameworks presents challenges, particularly regarding unpaid taxes during the possession period and the responsibility of tax compliance. The potential for tax arrears, tax liens, and property sales to recover lost revenue are critical issues for governments seeking to maintain revenue stability. Additionally, the ambiguity surrounding taxpayer responsibility during adverse possession can lead to gaps in tax collection. This paper analyzes these challenges and highlights potential solutions, including legislative reforms requiring tax payments by adverse possessors and improved tax collection mechanisms to safeguard public revenue. By examining the overlap between adverse possession and taxation law, this paper aims to provide insights into preserving government revenue while addressing the complexities of land ownership transitions.

Disputes of Adverse Possession on Forestland and the Determinants of Case Outcomes

The doctrine of adverse possession presents a risk to forestland ownership because timber management is infrequent. In this study, the extent of adverse possession claims on forestland in the United States is examined through a set of 243 published legal cases, and the determinants of the case outcomes are analyzed by a multinomial logit model. Those cases are from 32 states and distributed over 200 years, with an average of 12 cases per decade. Adverse possession claimants win 44% of the cases. The regression analysis reveals that whether an adverse possessor has a defective title is the leading factor in determining the case outcomes, and the periods required by statutes tend to negatively impact the winning probability of adverse possessors. The empirical findings have implications for landowners to defend their titles or remove a cloud on titles and for legislators to revise relevant laws in the future.

Redefining Ownership Under Thai Law: Is It a Right or Title?

In current Thai law, ownership is traditionally regarded as a real right applicable only to corporeal objects. An analysis of Supreme Court precedents suggests that certain intangible properties, like shares, are subject to usucapion (adverse possession), while some rights, such as copyrights and trademarks, are not. This leads to the question of which intangible objects may qualify as objects of ownership and could be acquired through usucapion. Furthermore, the paper conducts a comparative survey of ownership concepts in German and French legal systems alongside insights from Roman law articulated by the Gaius Institute. From all the connections, the author argues that ownership should be regarded not as a right but as a title and that its object can be extended to incorporeal objects that satisfy certain conditions, and this will have important implications for explaining why some types of incorporeal property, such as shares, may be acquired through usucapion but that others, such as intellectual property rights, cannot.

Adverse Possession Can Be use as a Sword as Well as Sheild Against the True Owner - An Analytical Study

Adverse Possession Can Be use as a Sword as Well as Sheild Against the True Owner - An Analytical Study

An Economic Analysis of Adverse Possession Statutes -- The Case of China and Germany

Adverse possession, a doctrine whereby a possessor of land who is not the true owner acquires title to the land without the consent or compensation of the "true" owner, while simultaneously appearing to be a trespasser's possession of the land adverse to the owner's interests from an economic perspective. This paper explores the economic implications of adverse possession statutes, focusing on China and Germany. It provides an overview of adverse possession, comparing relevant national laws, particularly those of Germany. Despite its economic efficiency, China has not established an adverse possession system. The analysis examines the current legislative status in China and explores inherent reasons for its absence. Evaluating the necessity for China to adopt such a system, potential problems are identified, including issues related to homeless individuals seizing property and challenges in replacing existing systems. However, the study highlights the economic benefits, such as enhancing transaction certainty reducing costs, and preventing errors through adverse possession.

Gambling on Housing: Is Adverse Possession a Valid Tool for the Reallocation of Vacant Property?

Adverse possession, a staple of first-year law school property classes, never fails to shock the conscience of unsuspecting law students. Some are surprised to learn that a squatter can acquire legal title to another person’s property by moving in and using it for a period of years. In recent years, housing activists have begun to view the doctrine as an outside-the-box solution to our nation’s housing crisis. There are dozens of vacant homes for every person experiencing homelessness in America. Why not give those properties to people who actually use them? However, this well-intended impulse does not square with reality. Adverse possession law does not incentivize efficient transfers of property when the adverse possessor is a squatter. In addition, adverse possession is—at best—a niche solution. The vast majority of people experiencing homelessness lack the means to pursue an adverse possession attempt, and American adverse possession law is often incompatible with notions of squatters’ rights. From this perspective, it is tempting to write off this novel application of adverse possession. However, this Article argues that housing activists cause real harm when they advocate for the use of adverse possession. Their rhetoric opens the door for opportunistic individuals to capitalize on unrealistic dreams of home ownership among vulnerable populations. Additionally, it only takes one squatter to trigger public outcry and the imposition of perverse reforms. Therefore, this Article argues that we should not advocate for a cure that could be worse than the disease. Activists must redirect their efforts to interventions that help rather than hurt. Meanwhile, state prosecutors must intervene to stop opportunistic individuals from profiting on others’ adverse possession attempts.

Land custom and the development of adverse possession in HKSAR: Taking the case of "Adverse possession" at A Kung Ngan Village Road, Shau Kei Wan as an example

Land custom and the development of adverse possession in HKSAR: Taking the case of "Adverse possession" at A Kung Ngan Village Road, Shau Kei Wan as an example

On the admissibility of usucaption of a non-separated premises, as a new perspective on the institution of usucaption of premises

The purpose of the article is to consider the possibility of acquiring a separate ownership right to an undivided premise or a part of previously divided premise through adverse possession (usucaption). This subject demands a fresh perspective, given the consistent unified stance of both the judiciary and legal scholars, who have traditionally considered such adverse possession as inadmissible. The examination gains particular significance in light of the approaching 30th anniversary of the enactment of the Act of 24 June 1994 on the ownership of premises, as this may result in an increase in litigation related to adverse possession claims concerning entire premises or their parts. Contrary to the long-standing established position of both jurisprudence and legal doctrine, the article demonstrates that acquiring separate ownership rights to previously undivided premises, as well as to parts of previously divided premises (such as rooms, auxiliary spaces, or ancillary facilities), is indeed feasible through usucaption. In both cases, compliance with the requirement of independence as defined in Art. 2 sec. 2 of the Act on the ownership of premises is crucial since only independent premises may be the subject of separate ownership. The argument presented in the article strongly advocate for the possibility of providing legal protection to possessors of undivided premises or parts of divided premises and for regularizing long-standing factual situations that do not align with the current legal status, which is the fundamental essence of adverse possession.

Bending Possession: How Detroiters Care for Land by Remediating Settler Property

AbstractThis article examines how people reconfigure the social, legal, and material claims that settler property relations make to place. It does so through ethnographic and historical attention to small‐scale gardens in Detroit, Michigan. When present‐day Detroiters transform grassy lots into gardens and places of shared enjoyment, they frequently encounter how antiblack environmental conditions are grafted with property claims created through settler‐colonial dispossession of Indigenous lands. Gardeners document encounters with the simultaneity of settler plotlines and contaminated soils as part of efforts to secure gardens from encroachment by real estate developers. As gardeners leverage legal conventions of settler property regimes like adverse possession manoeuvres, they also refuse the sociomaterial status quo of colonial land relations. In conversation with Detroiters and their gardens, this article offers bending possession as a handle for methods people develop that begin to provisionally redirect the violence of private property that sustains colonial racial capitalism.

Indefeasibility of Title and Adverse Possession in Kenya: An Uneasy Relationship?

The doctrine of adverse possession conjures up deep emotional and philosophical arguments, centuries after its inception. While courts have perpetually been called upon to pronounce themselves on the fairness of the doctrine, a new formidable challenge has now been levelled against the principle-that of its relevance to 21st century land law. The debate rages on in courtrooms and parliamentary floors around the world, calling lawmakers, members of the bar and the bench to contribute to the keep or discard dichotomy. This paper makes an argument for the incompatibility of adverse possession with an era characterized by rigorous registration systems. The analysis begins by tracing the history of adverse possession and then proceeds towards an empirical assessment of the arguments in favour of, and against the doctrine. The discourse then contextualizes the discussion to Kenya’s land law and concludes by making an argument against the retention of the doctrine with respect to registered land.

Legal Environment of Adverse Possession on Forestland and Empirical Evidence from the Past 200 Years

Abstract Private forestland has become more fragmented in the United States. Management activities on forestland are usually infrequent compared with those on other types of land (e.g., farmland), which makes forestland prone to the claim of adverse possession. In this study, the legal environment of adverse possession as a method of acquiring title to forestland in the United States is examined. Statutes in fifty states as of November 2021 and 243 published legal cases from 1802 to 2021 are identified and analyzed. Content analysis reveals that state statutes have defined seventy-seven statutory periods, with an average of thirteen years. Empirical evidence from the cases discloses that quiet-title action has been the dominant lawsuit type, the activities by adverse possessors on forestland are mainly related to timber and tax payment, and actual use and the continuous period of possession are the most commonly examined elements. An adverse possessor without any title to the disputed land can use forestland, but the probability of receiving a title is small. When forest landowners have a portion of property rights of the disputed land, they have extensively used adverse possession as a legal tool to clean the title.

Adverse Possession of Art

Some cases and commentators have argued that the doctrine of adverse possession, which gives title to a long-term possessor of property, should not be applied to personal property, especially art. This Article concludes that it is impossible to determine whether adverse possession applies to personalty in California. It then looks at the doctrine, policy, and practicalities of the statute of limitations, laches, and adverse possession, focusing on the practical effect of the increased cost of litigation. It concludes that most objections to applying adverse possession to personalty are, in fact, objections to barring the claiming owner through the statute of limitations. As a theoretical matter, once suit is barred by the statute of limitations, the application of adverse possession is appropriate, but adverse possession seems less important to successful litigants for personal property than it does for realty because there are few effective gatekeepers for personalty.

РЕСТИТУЦІЯ КУЛЬТУРНИХ ЦІННОСТЕЙ ТА НОРМИ ПОЗОВНОЇ ДАВНОСТІ

B a c k g r o u n d . The issue of restitution and the return of cultural values in Ukraine has gained particular relevance in light of the aggression against our country. Monitoring groups report the illegal export of cultural artifacts to the occupying nation, with some potentially finding their way into Russian museums. However, a considerable portion might be privately owned abroad, necessitating legal measures for their repatriation. M e t h o d s . The research employed various methods, including dialectical, systemic-structural, and comparative-legal approaches. R e s u l t s . The author examines the nuances of limitation of actions applied to claims in the return of cultural values both in Civil law countries and Common law countries. The "adverse possession" doctrine, used in Civil law countries, is examined. For this purpose, the Civil Code of Switzerland and the Code of Cultural and Landscape Heritage of Italy were scrutinized and analyzed. The application of limitation of actions in disputes concerning the return of cultural artifacts in Common Law countries is examined separately. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects of June 24, 1995. It has been proven that the approach used in this convention is flexible and balanced and contributes to the protection of both the original owner and the bona fide purchaser. C o n c l u s i o n s . The application of the "adverse possession" doctrine in its pure form has been found to pose significant challenges for the original owners of unlawfully seized cultural property. The effectiveness of the concept of limitation of actions in disputes related to the repatriation of cultural property in the UK has been established, providing adequate protection for the rights of the object owners. It is claimed that it is appropriate to establish special limitation of actions rules for the restitution and return of cultural values in Ukrainian legislation. As an example, one could consider adopting a model similar to that provided for in the UNIDROIT Convention or in the Code of Cultural and Landscape Heritage of Italy.

Commoning for Land Tenure Regularization: The Case of the Collective Urban Special Adverse Possession of Chácara do Catumbi in the City of Rio de Janeiro

Commoning for Land Tenure Regularization: The Case of the Collective Urban Special Adverse Possession of Chácara do Catumbi in the City of Rio de Janeiro

The Elements, Process, and Denouement Pertaining to Adverse Possession: Analyzing the cases of Walling v. Przybylo 2005 NY Slip Op. 06980, 24 A.D.3d 1, 804 N.Y.S.2d 435 and Walling v. Przybylo, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 04747, 7 N.Y.3d 228, 818 N.Y.S.2d 816, 851 N.E.2d 116

The Elements, Process, and Denouement Pertaining to Adverse Possession: Analyzing the cases of Walling v. Przybylo 2005 NY Slip Op. 06980, 24 A.D.3d 1, 804 N.Y.S.2d 435 and Walling v. Przybylo, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 04747, 7 N.Y.3d 228, 818 N.Y.S.2d 816, 851 N.E.2d 116

Complete Justice: From The Lens of Adverse Possession

Complete Justice: From The Lens of Adverse Possession

AN EXPANDING DIAGRAM OF RECIDIVISM OF ROHINGYA OFFENDERS IN BANGLADESH: AN OVERVIEW

The Rohingya, an ethnic Muslim minority group of Myanmar, have moved into neighboring Bangladesh as their homeland had revoked their citizenship. Despite many limitations, Bangladesh has given them shelter. The massive increase in population has created a disastrous situation in the Myanmar-Bangladesh border areas. Undocumented Rohingya people sought shelter primarily in Cox’s Bazar and the hilly areas of the south-eastern border of Bangladesh. They rely on natural resources and have easy access to the nearby forests which as a result is endangering the ecological balance and overall environmental condition of the surrounding areas. Being non-citizens logically they have no allegiance to the host country. In addition, they do not have any lawful profession to sustain their lives, which is leading them to get involved in various offences like narcotics smuggling, theft, dacoity, human trafficking, murder, deforestation, adverse possession of forest land, and various criminal activities. The Rohingya crisis may threaten the internal stability of Bangladesh in addition to bringing a humanitarian crisis. Rohingya are gradually assimilating with the locals in Cox’s Bazar and spreading throughout the country, posing a threat to Bangladesh’s national values and identity and impeding national development programs. Unfortunately, they are not solely to blame for all the crimes, local offenders are correspondingly engaged with them. This study attempts to draw the attention of the proper authorities to see the real scenario of criminality among the Rohingya and the impacts of such criminality in Bangladesh.

Land Surveying and Squatting

Although its scale and social implications depend on the specific country or local situations, squatting is a global urban and rural phenomenon associated with such humanitarian issues as social justice, poverty and environmental impact, as well as economic issues, such as rent seeking by certain groups. It can be sporadic or massive. The state appears to deal with the former by implementing legal rules and the latter with social policies. With regard to the economic gains and costs of allowing squatting, it can be argued that squatter policies, which confer some entitlements on squatters, are akin to the doctrine of adverse possession in equity through recognising the benefits of long-term possession of land. Surveying and mapping as a key tool in the regulation of squatters in this context may or may not be carried out, contrary to common belief. This paper demonstrates, with documented real-world examples from Australia and China, that the state surveying of massive urban or rural squatting on government land is contingent on the benefits and costs of tolerating squatting. The discussion is related to the transfer of development rights (TDR) as a practicable inclusive policy in the context of a global drive towards land assembly for real estate development, which squatters often obstruct.

Smart Property and Smart Contracts Under Spanish Law in the European Context

This article analyses the civil and registry implementation of smart property in real estate in Spain from a European perspective. To this end, a general theory is developed for smart property in real estate and transactional smart contracts, paying particular attention to remedies and property acquisition. Based on the remedies suggested by Nick Szabo in his formulation of smart contracts and smart property, such as the smart lien and the property club, other remedies adapted to our Law will be proposed, due to the ineffectiveness of Szabo’s remedies in the Spanish context. In this regard, attention will be paid to the types of acquisition of real rights, the validity and effectiveness of transactional smart contracts, the remedies for breach of contract, and the modifications to registration that these remedies require. Smart real estate requires the tokenization of property and the linking of the digital asset with the real asset. For this purpose, the functions of tokens and the remote control of real estate, the tokenization of real tradition, and the implementation of property technology (PropTech), in particular, the Internet of Things, will be addressed. Finally, blockchainization of the registry will be examined from the perspective of the Land Registry Interconnection and the Interoperability Model for Land Registers (IMOLA) platform in the EU and Alastria Blockchain Ecosystem in Spain, as well as its legal adaptations regarding registry qualification and registry effects in terms of adverse possession.