Re: Adverse Possession / Estoppel by Aquiescence

More | Report Post

Thanks for your input here.

In reference to this particular scenario, the
Plaintiff may seek to invoke the Laches as a part of the Claim
for Adverse Possession (Open and Hostile)
for,

1. The Plaintiff will assert that the Defendant
attempted to quietly alter the original (implied
written and verbal) agreement about the equal
division of the property in question, by putting
the property up For Sale (3 years after the
death of his spouse) and keep the money from the
sale to himself, without notifying the Plaintiff
of his intent. (Breach of an Implied Agreement)

2. The Plaintiff confronted the Defendant of his
blatant attempt to alter the property agreement,
and therefore asserts her rightful claim to the
entire property, as an original Heir to the
decedent (her grandfathers) Estate. As shown in
the original Chancery Suit. (Open and Notorious
Claim to Adversely take Possession of the
Property)

3. The Defendant had a simple legal obligation
to contact the local government, (where the
property is located) assert his legal right and
have his name inserted on the Deed, in place of
his deceased spouse. Further, the Defendant had
a Lawful duty to continue paying the property
taxes. The Defendant did nothing during the
period of 16 years after the Death of his
spouse, (whose name remains on said Deed) to
assert his rightful interest, before his Death.
(The Plaintiff asserts under Laches (equity) "he
slept on his rights")

4. The Plaintiff has shouldered the tax burden
for a period of 25 years, to protect her
interest in the property. (The Equitable
interest Claim)

5. The Plaintiff, has been the custodian and
caretaker of the property for a period of 41
years. (NOTE: that the property in question is
7.830 acres of open land with no structures on
it.) The Plaintiff has actively cleared brush,downed trees and
Posted No Trespassing, Hunting or Dumping signs.

6. The Plaintiff will assert, by the
Defendants "Silence" during those 16 years prior
to his Death, that she believes the Defendant
did, in fact, Acquiesced to her Open Claim as
rightful owner of the property. (Did not dispute or refute her
claim)

7. The Defendant left no verbal statement nor written
documentation, of which he had full knowledge of, about this
property and the dispute prior to his Death. Nor did he
request or list anywhere that the Plaintiff
be notified at the time of his Death, so the
Plaintiff could have made an out right Legal
Claim to the property at the time. (Delay to
Assert a Claim or Counter Plaintiff's Claim)

As you put forth in simple terms;

Laches = diminished ability to litigate caused
by delay.

The Plaintiff seeking to possibly invoke laches,
would be asserting that an opposing party
has "slept on it's rights" for a period of 16
years, out right, prior to his Death, and failed
to list/show the Plaintiff, as a party, to be notified at the
time of his Death. That as a direct result of this continued
delay or a period of 32 years now, that the
Defendant, nor other potential parties, are no
longer entitled to its original claim to the
property.

That the Plaintiff reasonably believed that the
Defendant was not going to exercise his legal
rights and acted on that belief to the
Defendants detriment. (Silence is acquiescence)

Estoppel = change in position as a result of the
delay that does or may cause financial loss.

The Plaintiff felt it was her responsibility to
pay the outstanding property taxes to protect
her position of a legal and rightful interest in
the property.

The Plaintiff has shouldered the Property Tax
burden for 25 years and continues to do so at a
net loss of $23,000.00, to date. This as a direct
result of the dereliction of responsibility and
passiveness by the Defendant to assert his
rights prior to his Death.

The Plaintiff's name and address has been listed on the County
Property Card, for this property, OPEN for Public Viewing. The
Plaintiff has the Tax Reciepts to back-up her payments on this
property.

I admit, I have no legal background and was confused by
the Collateral Estoppel you mentioned. Though,
after reading your response, I looked up it's
definition and application. If I am correct, I'm not sure it
would apply at this stage, because the Plaintiff
has yet to introduced a Lawsuit to claim "Right
of Adverse Possession" of the Property. But I may
be mistaken on it's application.

I am trying to research the possiblities and probabilities or
addition legal avenues that one could take with the
aforementioned scenario.

Thanks for responding to my inquiry. Any further
thoughts or suggestions would be most helpful
and appreciated. BTW this case will go before a
Virginia Court.