Brief Fact Summary. Appeal regarding an action for claim of title under adverse possession of a right of way.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. At the time of this case, to acquire real title to property by adverse possession, it must be shown by clear and convincing proof that for the statutory period of time there was actual occupation under a claim of title. The essential elements of proof are that the premises are protected by a substantial enclosure or usually cultivated or improved.
Issue. Whether title was acquired to subject premises by virtue of adverse possession?
Held. Reversed. The proof fails to establish actual occupation for such a time or in such a manner as to establish title by adverse possession. The premises were not protected by a substantial enclosure and there is no proof to show that cultivation incident to the garden utilized the whole of the premises claimed. Furthermore, the facts failed to show the premises were improved.
Dissent. The actions of the Appellee satisfied the adverse possession statute as the Appellee’s possession of the premises in question were akin to that of a road owner and indicated an intent to claim the property as his own. There is no requirement in either statute that proof of adverse possession depends upon cultivation of the whole plot.
Discussion. Title to real property may be acquired by adverse possession. Title by adverse possession results from the operation of the statute of limitations for trespass. If an owner does not, within the statutory period, take action to eject a possessor who claims adversely to the owner, title vests in the possessor. In order to have claim of title under adverse possession the possession must be open and notorious, actual and exclusive, continuous and hostile.