Re: Adverse Possession / Estoppel by Aquiescence

More | Report Post

Thanks for the input.

In this instance, the Plaintiff asserted Absolute Right of
Ownership for the entire property. The Plaintiff Openly took
control, maintained and paid the Taxes on the property for her
sole and individual use, for 29 years. Not for the benefit of both
parties.

There is a written statement in a letter about the equal division
of this property by the Defendant' spouse,(whos' name remains on
the Deed), dated 44 years ago and a verbal agreement, to which the
defendant was a party too, that would have benefited both parties.

However, when the defendant chose to breach this agreement, by
attempting a quiet sale for his own benefit, 3 years after the
death of his spouse, behind the other parties back, the plaintiff
chose to counter the agreement and take absolute and sole
possession for her own benefit.

The Plaintiff openly confronted the Defendant and asserted her
claim Rightful Ownership to the entire property. Quote: "This is
my property and if you want it, take me to Court" end quote. The
Plaintiff has never backed down on her claim of ownership, since
that confrontation with the defendant. Nor has the plaintiff heard
a word from, or recieved any correspondance from the Defendant or
anyone else challenging her claim in 29 years. There has never
been any legal changes made on the original Deed by the Defendant,
or any Court Records in 32 years to prove he asserted a legal
interest in the property. The Plaintiff believes, by doing
absolutely nothing to assert his legal rights after the
confrontation, over the time lapsed, the defendant passively
Acquiesced to her Rightful Claim of Ownership of the property.

As previously stated ref: this post, The Plaintiff here is
directly connected to this property, as shown in Court Records of
the Chancery Lawsuit originally filed against the Defendant'
spouse. The Plaintiff was related by blood to the defendant'
spouse, not some outsider.

Virginia Stautes are 20 years, I believe.

This will be the plaintiff's position in a nutshell.

On 7/22/07, john wrote:
> 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.