Re: Adverse Possession / Estoppel by Aquiescence

More | Report Post

It sounds like there is a viable case for adverse
possession but it is always trickey as there are numerous pit
falls. Advers possession laws differ in each state so it will
be determined by the laws of the state where the property is
located. If, however, the party claiming adverse possession was
acting as a caretaker of the property for the benefit of both
parties, it would not be adverse possession. Even if the other
party refused to cooperate or pay taxes on the property, the
only remedy would be to bring suite for the amount owed and/or
damages. Adverse possession must be under a claim of absolute
right contray to any other person. In other words, if a party
says; "I've been taking care of OUR property for 20 years
without any help at all from you." that is NOT adverse
possession.

I don't think laches will apply or for that matter would be
a helpful approach. Laches would apply if, and when a law suite
is brought to eject the person claiming a right by adverse
possession. If the delay by a party bringing a suite has
resulted in the unavailability of necessary records,
witnesses or other such prejudice to the litigation of the case,
the disadvantaged party could claim laches.

Now, if the party who is NOT claiming advers possession
(plaintiff) files an ejectment action or otherwise claims
rightful title, the issue will be whether the person claiming
right by adverse possession (defendant) has satisfied the
requirements to preempted an otherwise valid title claimed by
the plaintiff. Since the party claiming advers possession
(defendant) is only helped by the passage of time, they are not
prejudiced so laches would not apply. In an action where
adverse possession is at issue, the person claiming adverse
possession must satisfy the 20 year time requirement (or
whatever the time requirement is in the jurisdiction). Laches
can not shorten that requirement.