PROPERTY I
9.22.09
Teacher Slide
Van Valkenburg v. Lutz
 The case did not use common law but statutory law
 Common Law (adverse possession)
o Actual/Claim of Right
o Notorious
o Open
o Continuous
o Hostile
o Exclusive
Manillo v. Gorski
 Manillo v. Gorsky: Whether an entry and continuance of possession s an
element of title by adverse possession cannot be bottomed on mistake when
the AP…
 Knowing and wrongful taking
 Courts says elements satisfied: exclusive, continuous, visible,
notorious and against P’s claim of right (adverse)
 Maine doctrine:
o Actively encouraging trespassing in order for a claim of
adverse possession
o Rewards the intentional wrong-doer.
o Bird v. wiley case
 Law should be civil and not adopt this doctrine because
it awards the wrong doing on
 Connecticut doctrine: Does not rely on the intentions of the AP, but
merely looks at the act.
Doctrine
 Taking a legal rule and making it acceptable for the public (fairness)
Color of Title
 Florida required
o “Color of is a legal term meaning "pretense or appearance of" some
right; in other words, 'color of', as in 'color of law', means the thing
colors (or adjusts) the law; however the adjustment made may either
be lawful or it may merely appear to be lawful.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29)
Howard v. Kunto
 WHETHER a person who purchases land from the prior owner unaware that
the owner’s deed is not for the purchased property but by mistake of fact is
for another adjacent lot may assert a claim for Adverse Possession of the
previous owner’s occupancy and the present owner’s occupancy by way of
tacking amounts to the statutory limits required in that jurisdictions.
Disability




Minority
o Under 18 (minor)
Insanity
Incarcerated
Active military service