Can adverse possession divide land?

[TriPolar]

I’m not sure what our state laws are on the taxes but I know of case where a business bought someone’s property, and it turned out part of that property was not owned by anyone. They claimed adverse possession based on the previous owner’s (deceased) use of the property and weren’t required to pay any taxes. I assume that’s because no taxes were ever assessed. I’m sure they’re now paying taxes on that piece of land.

[UltraVires]

@Derleth

Thank you. I think “color of title” is the concept I was missing when I made the OP.

No problem. You think this would be a rare thing, but it is not. Say John Doe, a widower, dies and according to his will, his 100 acre farm is legally devised equally to his two children, A and B. He also specifies that good friend C will be the executor of his estate.

Despite a bajillion cases to the contrary, when both children decide to sell the property, the deed is styled “C, as executor of the Estate of John Doe: Grantor, and Other Party: Grantee.” This is improper. Title to the property has vested in A and B and only they may convey it.

Invariably, either A or B, being the little assholes that they are, will complain in later years that they really didn’t want to sell the property, that Dad wanted them to keep it, that C didn’t get enough money for it, etc.

However, if it has been longer than 10 years, C’s mistake is cured. The Other Party owns the entire 100 acre parcel by adverse possession.

[Chronos]

You could also have a case, for instance, where two farmers thought for generations that the boundary between their lands was the creek, only to find out when the heir to one family wants to sell the farm and move to the city that the original deeds actually specified a straight line. It’s easier for everyone involved to just treat the boundary the same way it has been for years, and so the law lets that happen.

[TriPolar]

@Chronos

You could also have a case, for instance, where two farmers thought for generations that the boundary between their lands was the creek, only to find out when the heir to one family wants to sell the farm and move to the city that the original deeds actually specified a straight line. It’s easier for everyone involved to just treat the boundary the same way it has been for years, and so the law lets that happen.

Unless that creek has moved significantly. One of the farmers may have lost a lot of land over the years as the creek changed course and he’ll try to use the original deed to get it back.

[mbh]

Not just farmers. Sometimes it’s nations.

Chamizal dispute

The dispute was formally settled on 14 January 1964, when the United States and Mexico ratified a treaty that generally followed the 1911 arbitration recommendations. The agreement awarded to Mexico 366 acres (1.48 km2) of the Chamizal area and 71 acres (0.29 km2) east of the adjacent Cordova Island. Although no payments were made between the two governments, the United States received compensation from a private Mexican bank for 382 structures included in the transfer. The United States also received 193 acres (0.78 km2) of Cordova Island from Mexico, and the two nations agreed to share equally in the cost of rechanneling the river. In 1964, Presidents Adolfo López Mateos and Lyndon B. Johnson met at the border to end the dispute. On 17 September 1963, the U.S. Congress introduced the American–Mexican Chamizal Convention Act of 1964, which finally settled the matter. In October 1967, President Johnson met with President Gustavo Díaz Ordaz on the border and formally proclaimed the settlement.[17]

One of the aims of the Chamizal Convention was to build a man-made channel to prevent the Rio Grande from blurring the international boundary in the future. The channel was constructed of concrete, 167 feet (51 m) in width at the top and 15 feet (4.6 m) deep.[18] The two governments shared the cost of the channel, along with the cost of three new bridges. The United States established a museum known as the Chamizal National Memorial in 1974 to increase visitor awareness of cooperation, diplomacy and cultural values as a basic means to conflict resolution.[19]

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Derleth

So I suppose Richard Parker’s answer is correct, that adverse possession does not divide land, and that the squatter would own the whole hundred acres, cleared or not.

Presumably, adverse possession could divide the land if it were treated as more than one parcel.

If there were two cabins built on that 100 acres, and each inhabitant met the requirements for adverse possession? That would divide the land, right?

If the purpose of adverse possession is to codify assumed ownership of parts of land such that what people are acting like ends up being the actual legal title, there’s no particular reason to expect a one-to-one mapping between originally titled parcels and adversely possessed ones. In fact, any such relationship might be totally arbitrary.

[Northern_Piper]

No, it can divide up parcels of land. That’s what the examples upthread of encroaching walls or car parks are about.

[md2000]

@CharmaChameleon

It can and does happen in Alabama. My ex-wife lost 1.4 acres out of her 4.5 acres to a neighbor who put up a fence (preventing us from cutting the weeds, grass, etc.). The neighbor sued, and the land was his.

Of course, this is Alabama!

Presumably the fence lasted 10 years without your wife complaining or trying to bypass it? If so, this is what adverse possession is all about. Not noticing that you’re blocked out of 1/3 of your property for 10 years…? Sounds like an interesting story. I assume this is one of these cases where nobody knew where the property line was, or a mercenary neighbour who decided to see if your wife did not know…

IIRC several jurisdictions are going to computerized title systems - meaning whatever the title database says, unless it was changed by fraud, is where title rests. No more adverse possession.

[UltraVires]

@Richard_Parker

The general rule is that occupying the land only requires that you use it in the customary way. So if the normal use of that land is to build a cabin, you can still adversely possess the whole parcel with that use.

But adverse possession doesn’t recognize parcels per se, unless under color of title. Why couldn’t the same person argue that he had adversely possessed 2,000 acres of land because the customary use would be to build a cabin in the middle of it?

I understand that every state law is different, but if I were to build a cabin and clear five acres, how was my occupation of the other 95 acres open and notorious? Indeed, I didn’t even occupy it.

Core v. Faupal, 24 W.Va. 238 (1884) gives an excellent discussion on adverse possession in West Virginia. Yes, it was decided in 1884, but not one word of it has been overturned and it is taught in the law school as THE case on adverse possession here.

[UltraVires]

@Core at 247-8

It must be under a claim, or color of title. What has already been said incidentally in the preceding discussion sufficiently describes the character and necessity of claim or color of title in the adverse holder. The principal office of a claim or color of title is to define the boundaries and describe the extent of the adverse holding. If it is a mere claim that is a mere assertion of right without any paper title the adverse holding will be limited to the actual enclosure of the claimant Kincheloe v. Tracewells, 11 Graft. 587. But, if it is founded on a deed or other documentary title the holding will be treated as co-extensive with the boundaries contained in such deed or document, provided the possession of the adverse claimant is exclusive.

It has been asserted that a deed void on its face or disclosing facts which show that the person from whom it is acquired had no title, cannot form the basis of an adverse possession Moore v. Brown, 11. How. 424; Simmons v. Lane, 25 Ga. 178; Marsh v. Wier, 21 Tex. 97. As to the correctness of this position no opinion is here expressed, as it is not required by this case; but the courts have concurred, it is believed without exception, (certainly such is the law in Virginia and this State,) that any paper which has the appearance of a title, although it is not in fact such, may be a color of title. It has been decided by our courts to be “a good or bad, a legal or an equitable title” Adams v. Alkire, 20 W. Ya. 480; Shanks v. Lancaster, 5 Graft. 110. The authorities seem to be conclusive, that a claim to land, under a conveyance, however inadequate to carry the true title to such land, and however incompetent might have been the power of the grantor in such conveyance to pass the title to the subject thereof, yet a claim asserted under the provisions of such deed is strictly under a color of title, and one which will draw to the possession of the grantor the protection of the statute of limitations, other requisites of those statutes being complied with. The question of what is color of title is a matter of law and when the facts exhibiting the title are shown, the court must determine whether they amount to color of title. But good faith in the party, claiming under such color, is a question of fact for the jury Tyler on Ejectment, &c. 872-3.

Short version, under color of title you get the whole thing. If you snuck on the property, you get your own enclosure.

[Isilder]

This adverse possession stuff comes from common law, which is unwritten.

Most modern legislation on the topic redefined it as tresspass, or tennacy.

[Isilder]

While it could mean the whole title of an acreage, if its fenced off and the adverse possession meant that the whole of the land was effectively used exclusively by the thief.
But it could also break up the title , such as someone being allowed to live in a house without a rental conctract ( even payment of rent can be seen as proof such a contract exists) that ensures its not seen as adverse possession.
If they used the house and cared for the garden around it, that area could be broken off. Because the common law predate most states land title law, the land law in the particular state may well contradict the idea that adverse possession can break up the title but not yet cancel adverse possession alltogether. If that is the case, then the theif must show exclusive use of the whole title, and clearly a letter from the president stating that is so is enough, right ??