sk1130 wrote:ndbigdave wrote:sk1130 wrote:For 22 years, the land records have shown a man as the owner of an 80-acre farm. The man has never physically occupied the land.
Nineteen years ago, a woman entered the farm. The character and duration of the woman's possession of the farm caused her to become the owner of the farm under the adverse possession law of the jurisdiction.
Three years ago, when the woman was not present, a neighbor took over possession of the farm. The neighbor repaired fences, put up "no trespassing" signs, and did some plowing. When the woman returned, she found the neighbor in possession of the farm. The neighbor vigorously rejected the woman's claimed right to possession and threatened force. The woman withdrew.
The woman then went to the man and told him of the history of activity on the farm. The woman orally told the man that she had been wrong to try to take his farm. She expressly waived any claim she had to the land. The man thanked her.
Last month, unsure of the effect of her conversation with the man, the woman executed a deed purporting to convey the farm to her son. The son promptly recorded the deed.
The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years.
Who now owns the farm?
- [+] Spoiler
- A. The man, because the woman's later words and actions released title to the man.
B. The neighbor, because the neighbor succeeded to the woman's adverse possession title by privity of possession.
C. The son, because he succeeded to the woman's adverse possession title by privity of conveyance.
D. The woman, because she must bring a quiet title action to establish her title to the farm before she can convey the farm to her son.
Can someone explain to me why the answer is C and not D? This might be a stupid question but the answer explanation says, "Having established title to the farm by adverse possession, there is no requirement that the woman sue to establish title. Therefore, she could convey the farm to her son." That said, when does the rule saying an adverse possessor must quiet title kick in?
Trying to explain in layman's terms so it makes sense:
Man owned the farm, but through adverse possession the woman then had title.
The info regarding the other person who put up signs and took possession of the land is irrelevant as it was only for 3 years and that person had no right to keep her off the land.
The oral agreement is irrelevant as we are dealing with land (statute of frauds) - so the woman retained her title to the land.
Woman then conveyed a title to her son.
The son now has title.
Thus C is the correct answer.
Yeah, I understand what happened in the question. I was more so referring to the statement answer choice D made, as I recognize that there is some connection between requiring to quiet title and taking by adverse possession. So I was asking for clarification on where that idea comes form/where it applies, or if I'm just completely mistaken. (thanks though!)
Sorry for misunderstanding your question.
I hope this explanation is better:
Simply put, there is no requirement for a quiet title action in order for the woman to pass title to her son. I suppose in the real world to clear up loose ends and clean up the title history for the future it would make sense to file a claim to quiet title, establish that adverse possession has taken place and THEN pass title to the son, but it is not REQUIRED. To obtain TITLE by adverse possession one must simply:
Continuous--A single adverse possessor must maintain continuous possession of the property. However, the continuity may be maintained between successive adverse possessors if there is privity between them.
Hostile--In this context, "hostile" does not mean "unfriendly." Rather, it means that the possession infringes on the rights of the true owner. If the true owner consents or gives license to the adverse possessor's use of the property, possession is not hostile and it is not really adverse possession. Renters cannot be adverse possessors of the rented property, regardless of how long they possess it.
Open and Notorious--Possession must be obvious to anyone who bothers to look, so as to put the true owner on notice that a trespasser is in possession. One will not succeed with an adverse possession claim if it is secret.
Actual--The adverse possessor is actually in possession of someone else's property. The true owner has a cause of action for trespass, which must be pursued within the statute of limitations.
Exclusive--The adverse possessor does not share control of the property with any one else (unless in privity with himself). He excludes others from possession, as if he was actual owner.
There are no other required steps to obtain title to land by adverse possession. So the Quiet Title Action is an unnecessary step.
