Adverse Possession Flashcards
Purpose:
Way of gaining de facto rights — through— LONGER USE of someone else’s land
Governed by
Statute of limitations act 1957
Necessary ELEMENTS— to satisfy Section 18 for adverse possession
1) land must be capable of being ENJOYED
Dundalk UDC v Conway
Held- small plot of wasteland @steep gradient - beside- a river
- incapable of being enjoyed by owner- even-though it had value
2) legal owners enjoyment— must have — DISCONTINUED
3) legal owner — must be - DISPOSSESSED— of land by squatter
4) discontinuance of enjoyment and dispossession— must have been — for PERIOD of 12yrs /30yrs where land owned by state (s14 of statute of limitations 1957)
5). dispossession must be accompanied by— an INTENTION —- by squatter to exclude all others including owner ( ANIMUS POSSIDENDI) Doyle v O’Neill
Summary of requirements
1) original owner - person whose title is alleged to be extinguished —MUST not have been — in possession of land during RELEVANT period
2) another person (squatter)— must have been— in possession of land — throughout that period
3) squatter must have been — in possession — as a trespasser — WITHOUT permission
4) squatter must have animus possidendi- intention to possess land
Must not have been in possession of land during relevant period
Browne v fahy- slight acts
—Must have dispossessed land - throughout 12 year period
— must have had right to possession
————EVEN SLIGHT ACTS OF OWNERSHIP
over 12 yr period — NEGATES—dispossession
BROWN V FAHY
—one of owners— WALKED — over land on number of occasions
—-HELD—- defeated —- adverse possession
CONTROVERSIAL DECISION:::
DUNDALK UDC V CONWAY
—-area of land — slopes down into river
—-area — only used by owner—- when it was necessary to REPAIR— bridge over river
—-held—- owner — hadn’t gone near land in 12 hrs
—- had NOT— objected — to neighbours grazing cattle
— did NOT—- amount to dispossession/ discontinuance
Squatter must have possession of land — throughout that period
Acts MUST amount to possession
Doyle v o’ neill
— o Hanlon j— to defeat title of original owner— adverse user must be of “ definite and positive character”
— leaving no doubt— in mind of landowner
Re Dunne
Local children— kept ponies and horses— on lands used by squatter — during period he was alleging adverse possession
Clarke j— possession had NOT been shown
Dunne— predominant user
— NOT satisfied — that he’s the exclusive user ( due to local children)
However— if 3rd parties — were on land — with permission of squatter — would be able to claim possession
If 2 persons — deliberately— shared possession — could claim joint possession
In Dunne—1 Clarke j— distinguished
Acts of possession VS acts relating to exercise of lower right ( ie easements)
FENCING/ BARRIER— to exclude people— would equate to showing ownership rights
However— fencing in Dunne— NOT FOR REQUIRED 12 yrs
In BATTELLE V PINEMEADOW—- fencing— showed possession
Facts
Facts: The plaintiffs had purchased a property and over time had incorporated an area at the back of the house into their garden. The defendant subsequently acquired an interest in the lands in question and sought to enforce their title and entered onto the disputed area of land
Judgement : ???
Squatter must have possession WITHOUT PERMISSION
— tenants— have permission- no adverse possession
— tenants overstaying— after expiration of tenancy WITHOUT permission— adverse possessors
Tenants — staying WITH— permission— WITHOUT paying rent—- tenants @will and become adverse possessors 1 YR AFTER expiration of tenancy
S17
Licensees — persons staying on land WITH permission NOT tenants
CANNOT be in adverse possession
IMPLIED license—- likely to be held — where— relationship is FAMILY one
A v C 2007
Laffoy j— REFUSED — adverse possession claim— between father and son === implied license
BATTELLE v PINEMEADOW — finnegan j— No permission
Plaintiff—- approached cranford Ltd—- rightful owner of land
— seeking permission to extend their garden
Response from cranford—- could not say — whether OWNED land and expressed lack of interest
Held — license — NOT implied—- where rightful owner—- unclear as to its title —- ONLY failed to make objection to occupiers use of land
Squatter—Must have animus possidendi
INTENTION TO POSSESS
Feehan v Leamy
— Gardai — called to lands in issue
— squatter — said lands belonged to man— in America
According to finnegan J— FAILURE of squatter — to assert ownership. NEGATED animus possidendi
ORAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT of owner’s title — may NEGATE animus possidendi
SUCCESSIVE SQUATTERS
— no requirement—- that same person — be in adverse possession— for entire period required — to establish adverse possession
Mount carmel investments V thurlow
Held—1st squatter — abandons his rights to adverse possession
2nd squatter—- can obtain title BY CONTINUING — original adverse possession
Time period —will be calculated from date of original adverse possession
Murphy v Murphy
Son farmer all lands as a single unit for years
Banking entire income in his own name
Mortgaging the whole of the land as security for a bank loan
Held- adverse possession of mothers land
Hickson v Boylan
To claim AP—- based on plaintiffs —-action in walking, shooting and raising pheasants on disputed bog land
Held— Carroll j—-these acts INSUFFICIENT to establish AP
Leigh v Jack
Gave rise to principle—- true owner— had future intended use for land -1 squatters acts — would have to be adverse to that FUTURE INTENDED use — to satisfy requirements of animus possidendi
Facts
Land acquired by Jack— adjoined land intended by owner (Leigh) —to be used as street development in future
Jack aware of future intended use
Jack stored his scrap metal on Leigh’s land —and made it impassable except by foot— over a period of time
HELD- Leigh’s title was not extinguished — as— jacks acts— did NOT show required intention
NOT contrary to Leigh’s future intended use for land
Leigh v Jack disputes in English cases but applied in Irish case— cork corporation v lynch
Plot of land had been acquired—- by plaintiff with intention of using it as— road development in future
Defendant started parking cars—- on Adjoining land
He erected a chain like fence— along boundaries — and had the plot surfaces with tarmac
Defendant— only person to use plot of land
Egan j—- AP NOT established — as defendants acts NOt contrary to or incompatible with SPECIFIC FUTURE INTENDED USE
