Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is common to find «informal ownership» in Latin America in the context of illegal takings. Human settlements in Peru, favelas in Brazil, or camps in Chile, in all cases, a group of people builds land rights outside the law. Although this phenomenon has been analyzed many times from an economic perspective, mostly proposing the granting of property titles as a solution, the review of the Peruvian case shows its ineffectiveness. In 1982, 53.54 % of the houses in Peru had property titles; however, after almost forty years and multiple land titling laws, in 2017 this percentage dropped to 50.65 %. Moreover, between 2001 and 2018, 46 % of new housing was built upon informal property through illegal takings. The present investigation proposes another view from the legal perspective, investigating on the traditional civil institution of the adverse possession, and offering a refocus to the problem.

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.

Copyright of Revista Iberoamericana de Estudios de Desarrollo is the property of Revista Iberoamericana de Estudios de Desarrollo 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 Direito da Cidade is the property of Editora da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (EdUERJ) 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 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on reported decisions by Indiana's Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Tax Court on real property issues. Topics include adverse possession; easement agreements and eminent domain; and Cases including Millikan v City of Noblesville, Blind Hunting Club, LLC v. Martini, and Haggard v. State are discussed.

When governments embark on public projects, sometimes mistakes happen. A government might mistakenly construct part of a road or some other publicly owned facility on land that is owned by a private person without condemning that land. When this kind of mistake happens and a landowner does not object for a long period of time and a dispute later arises, the governmental entity will sometimes assert that the doctrine of adverse possession vests title in the disputed land in favor of the government or that the doctrine of common law prescription establishes an easement in favor of the government. U.S. courts almost universally recognize that these well-established common law doctrines can benefit governmental entities. Some commentators, however, have criticized the majority view of U.S. courts and called for a ban of adverse possession or prescription by the state or have recommended that a government entity should pay just compensation when it acquires property interests using these doctrines. In this Article, we reject most of these critiques because they underestimate the importance of adverse possession and prescription by governmental entities to the functioning of the legal system and overestimate the danger of abuse. Analyzing not only U.S. law, but also five European jurisdictions, we argue that adverse possession and prescription by the state serves to put an end to conflicts over land, corrects defective titles, encourages private owners to be vigilant about their property rights, and respects the bonds than can develop between members of the public with land that has long been occupied or used by the public. We argue that a prohibition against adverse possession or prescription by the state or the imposition of a compensation requirement would stand in the way of achieving these goals. Meanwhile, the published case law gives no indication of widely spread abuse. Building on the insights of some critics of government adverse possession, however, we do offer some modest recommendations for change in the law. In particular, we explain that private landowners faced with an unauthorized government intrusion often lack a powerful suite of remedies—especially when it comes to an action in ejectment—to combat an unauthorized government intrusion before the statutory periods for adverse possession or prescription have run. We thus propose several recommendations to achieve remedial equivalency and bring U.S. law in line with the private law of the European jurisdictions we consider. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Collected Papers of the Law Faculty of the University of Rijeka / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci is the property of Pravni fakultet Sveucilista u Rijeci 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.)

Acquisition of property in good faith is recognized by Latvian law through numerous exceptions from the principle of causation. The law does not provide a clear-cut regulation. Case law has experienced several stages where the same law is applied differently in similar situations, and this has made the outcome of court rulings unpredictable. Attempts to solve the problem by amending existing law so far have been unsuccessful.

This article aims to analyze the possibility of occurrence of adverse possession among heirs in relation to goods belonging to the hereditary collection. The analysis of this research object has wide relevance, since the Civil Code suppressed any express provision on the subject, causing wide divergences in legal literature and case law. To achieve the proposed aim, a qualitative and qualitative approach was used, based on the statistical analysis of judges from the Superior Court of Justice, Court of Justice of São Paulo, Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro, Court of Justice of Minas Gerais and Court of Justice of Espírito Santo. The analysis of the judges shows that most of the judges understand the adverse possession among heirs as possible, but that the demonstration of all the necessary requirements for proving the adverse possession has been a challenge in specific cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă 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.)

Under threat of enclosure in rapidly gentrifying cities, some urban commoners are turning to legal tactics to ward off dispossession. In this article, I explore the contested legal geographies of urban commoning, considering some of the challenges, stakes, and opportunities that emerge in the effort to gain legal recognition. Specifically, I examine the use of the doctrine of adverse possession by Philadelphia gardeners to claim title to the community farm they cultivated as an urban commons for decades. In the context of a neoliberal settler colonial city, I argue that the gardeners' adverse commoning, involving an il/legal counterclaim to property, facilitates consideration of the ways urban commoners are both enrolled in normative property regimes and have the potential to resist these regimes through errant performances of proprietary continuity, exclusivity, notoriety, and hostility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In spite of the various justifications advanced to support the law on adverse possession, the doctrine has been variously interrogated especially its capability of defeating the notion of indefeasibility of title which is a fundamental characteristic of land registration. The problems have sparked up waves of reform of the doctrine across jurisdictions and works by various scholars. The aim of any such reform is tailored towards conferring additional protection on the registered land owners against undeserving adverse possession claims, in a manner which preserves certain valuable functions performed by the doctrine. This work, using the doctrinal methodology interrogates some existing alternative methods of reform of adverse possession but finds that none of the existing methods of reform can adequately protect the interest of registered land owners. The work in its contribution to knowledge proposes restitution as a workable solution to deal with the negative effects of adverse possession of registered land, and concludes that the best way to protect the interest of registered land owners is through the application of restitution principle founded on unjust enrichment to the operation of adverse possession. [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.