Search

Adverse possession is one of property law's most central doctrines. Yet, this Article contends, the need it answers has been largely misunderstood. Adverse possession's doctrinal effects are clear--and stark: when its requirements are met, an owner loses her land to an invader. To explain a doctrine instituting such a radical result, scholars resort to property law's major philosophical theories. These theories, they argue, at times demand that an owner lose her land to another person who is more committed to that land. The problem with these prevailing justifications of adverse possession, this Article shows, is that they imagine a very specific case of adverse possession: a squatter putting invaded land to a meaningful use. In reality, however, very few adverse possession cases nowadays involve homesteading squatters. Instead, most consist of neighbors bickering over the boundary separating their lots. Thus, adverse possession now functions as a tool for adjusting boundaries, often to the tune of a mere few inches or feet. For this actual, as opposed to imagined, role of adverse possession, justifications grounded in philosophical theories focused on the abstract concept of property are not fully satisfactory. The justification for a doctrine performing such a mundane function must be more practical. Adverse possession must be compared, and shown to be superior, to alternative tools that can perform the same boundary-drawing function. This Article conducts such a comparison. It explains that American law retains adverse possession because, contrary to popular belief, our formal system of property boundaries--which uses map lines--is unreliable, indeed unworkable. The choice to retain this dysfunctional boundary system, some of whose imperfections necessitate adverse possession, is probably not socially efficient, but it serves the interests of a powerful industry bred by the existing system: the title insurance industry. This Article thus supplements the somewhat inapposite philosophical accounts of adverse possession's function in American law with a practical one. It then stresses the normatively troubling aspects of that function. Based on this critique, this Article further advocates for judicial and legislative reforms to better reflect and regulate adverse possession's true function in current American law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers a third-rail approach to narratives that squatters reveal the essence of how property law articulates values embedded in social and legal treatment of land relationships. Topics discussed are settlers' ownership claims to an empty land and the formation of state goals that reveal the underlying political and power structures of private property law, adverse possession and schemes for normalizing land claims, and squatters' urban land claims of right based on sweat equity.

Copyright of Revista Opara: Ciências Contemporâneas Aplicadas is the property of Revista OPARA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Resolving boundan· dispiltes usually results in neighbors becoining antagonistic and oftentimes engaging in a costly venture. Land has always been associated with the identity of the owners, and any infringement on the phvsical property results as an infringement on the person. In general, the parties involved lose sight of cost and focus on the location of the boundary. This article compares clifil·ring theories to resolve boundary disputes and when appropriate advance the Doctrine of Consentable Line, as opposed to adverse possession, to acquire title to land. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Collected Papers of Zagreb Law Faculty / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu is the property of Sveuciliste u Zagrebu, Pravni Fakultet and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Strategic Universe Journal / Univers Strategic is the property of Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University, Institute for Security Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article will assess the case for reforming the Irish law on adverse possession to confer additional protection on the owner. Assuming such reform is warranted, it is possible that an existing judicial solution, known as the rule in Leigh v Jack, has already been devised. Ontario's experience with an equivalent rule, known as the inconsistent use test, is of interest in this context and certain academic literature is discussed which explains why the inconsistent use test was developed and argues in favour of its retention or resurrection. An alternative model of protection is then analyzed: the English Qualified Veto System of adverse possession introduced by the Land Registration Act 2002. I argue that a judicial or legislative reincarnation of the rule in Leigh v Jack would be an extremely flawed method of reforming the law in jurisdictions, such as Ireland, which are considering reform, as the Qualified Veto System more effectively responds to the difficulties which the inconsistent use test appears to be attempting to resolve. I conclude that such a Qualified Veto System, similar, although not identical to the one introduced in England, should be introduced in Ireland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses solutions proposed to the problem of orphan works. Orphan works are copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or impossible to identify and/or locate after carrying out a diligent search. The first and foremost aim of providing a solution for the problem of orphan works is to regain the goal of copyright protection, which is to enable the public to access and benefit from protected works. This article examines various solutions that have been adopted by different countries. It also analyses solutions that are under examination for introduction into law, such as limited liability in the United States. The authors reveal that the adoption of a solution by any country requires careful study to introduce the most appropriate approach. It was also found that solving the problem of orphan works would benefit both users and copyright holders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents several court cases on real property law that were heard by the Indiana Supreme Court, the Indiana Tax Court, and the Court of Appeals of Indiana. In the case Hardin v. McClintic, the Court of Appeals tackled issues of adverse possession claim and prescriptive easement, while the case Marsh v. Town of Dayton decided on the adequacy of a fiscal plan for proposed annexation under Indiana Code.

With the entry into force of the Code of Civil Procedure (Federal Law n. 13.105/2015), originated the possibility of adverse possession, that is, of the interested party seeking the declaration of the possession of real estate property directly in the extrajudicial services, without the necessity of if you turn to the Judiciary. It is, in fact, the search for the new civil procedure to adapt the means of conflict resolution, in order to promote social pacification with access to effective, just, efficient and adequate justice. In this idea, the adverse possession aims at exactly this misjudicialization of the conflicts, facilitating the acquisition of the immovable property. However, after a few years of its validity, it is necessary to analyze, through a bibliographic and specific legislation review, the institute under a vision of practical applicability and to point out possible issues that may hinder its effective action in society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our objectives are to present a case study of a piece of land owned in adverse possession, with the surface of 200 sqm situated in Bucharest, although occupied for more than 28 years, which was the subject of a trial for adverse possession, this trial was lost on the merits, appeal and second appeal. Parallel with the promotion of the extraordinary way of attack of the revision, it promoted in the court a case for the absolute partial nullity of the title of property issue on the name of another person, a year before this title of property was obtained, this person sold the land to her son during the process of adverse possession performance. This case study shows that, by the partial absolute nullity of the title of property, the first owner runs the risk to lose 200 sqm of the title of property, all the subsequent documents being under nullity, not valid anymore. The research method used was the study of some passed judicial resolutions, of a title of property and some sales-purchase contract. The results of the research led us to the conclusion that the court in Romania was correct when it allowed that the City Hall send the file to the court, the administrative file which was at the base of issuing the title of property according to Law no. 18/1991. The results of the study show that in this case irregularities were done as far as the issuance of the title of property is concerned, considering that there were no proofs before 1989 for the given title of property. Our study implications are done in the sense of a more attentive check of the authorities in order to issue the title of property and their validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Review of Private Law / Revista Română de Drept Privat is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The dispute between Muslims and Sikhs over the Shahidganj mosque in Lahore in the early 1930s served as the prelude to the Punjabi Muslims' decisive shift in favour of the Pakistan movement. The competing political campaigns, religious polarization and intermittent spells of violence that it triggered has attracted the attention of historians interested in the development of communitarian mass politics and partition. However, the dispute also played out in the colonial courts and became the site on which some of the knottiest questions of colonial jurisprudence were debated. The present essay looks at this ignored aspect of the Shahidganj conflict. Could the mosque, like a Hindu deity, be designated a juristic person? What laws would apply in an inter-religious dispute of this nature? And whether in such matters, the state law enjoyed pre-eminence over religious laws. Despite the unanimity over the building's antecedents as a mosque, the courts – all the way from the Sikh tribunal, to the High Court to the Privy Council – ruled in favour of the Sikhs. The essay seeks to understand how these competing claims were adjudicated and what were the imperatives of the colonial government that resulted in such a judicial outcome. It then proceeds to examine the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case in order to understand the continuities as well as departures in the exigencies of the post-colonial state, and the resolutions it offered thereof in such disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]