criteria for adverse possession

wazzoraybelle

is it enough to negate a claim of adverse possession to demonstrate that a third party has, on a continuous basis,used a private road built on that land as a sole means of access to the third party's property?

Thanks, Wazzo

FreudianSlippers

Probably not. You're likely thinking of a right of way.

I believe the most recent case on adverse possession is the Dunne -v- Iarnród Éireann & Anor [2007] IEHC 314 (the Anor being CIE).

Two key elements:

1. Has there been a continuous 12 year period where a squatter was in exclusive possession of the property to such an extent that it is sufficient to establish an intention to possess the property?
   
2. Is that 12 year period broken at all by an act of possession on behalf of the landowner? (if there is it effectively restarts the 12 year clock)

Even the slightest act of possession on behalf of the landowner is sufficient to break possession (the crux of the Dunne case)
CIE in this case had carried out works on some portion of the land only and rebuilt fences between their owned lands and the land owned by the neighbour (who was Dunne IIRC).
The Court, rightfully IMO, held that this met the low threshold to restart the clock.

234

You have to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the title of the owner. Merely crossing the land would not be enough, there would have to be possession. As stated above you might have a better claim to a right of way by perscription.

wazzoraybelle

1. No, the claimant hasn't had 'exclusive' use of the land, as it's used daily,for access, by third parties.

2. No, the paper title holder has not made any act of possession in a 12 year period

in dunne v iarnrod eireann, the judge made reference to worn paths across the land in question but I can't determine whether it was a factor in refusing the claim.

wazzoraybelle

234 wrote: »

You have to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the title of the owner. Merely crossing the land would not be enough, there would have to be possession. As stated above you might have a better claim to a right of way by perscription.

For clarification, I'm not the one with the claim. I would be the third party that uses the road daily.

234

Wait, was the claimant accessing the land or were various other third parties accessing the land? Doesn't sound like he has a strong claim to adverse possession. If somebody is trying to claim this then go straight to a solicitor.
Edit: just saw your post. The key questions is was the claimant accessing the land?

NoQuarter

The answer is no, a third party has no effect on whether a squatter gains adverse possession or not. If the paper owner has not been on the land in 12 years and there is a squatter there, the paper owner is in real trouble.

It is the case that the squatter has more rights to the land now than any third party. Like FS said though, there is most probably an easement over the land.

Edit: as above, Im assuming the claimant has either been living on the land or putting money into it and isnt just any oul joe soap.

wazzoraybelle

234 wrote: »

Wait, was the claimant accessing the land or were various other third parties accessing the land? Doesn't sound like he has a strong claim to adverse possession. If somebody is trying to claim this then go straight to a solicitor.
Edit: just saw your post. The key questions is was the claimant accessing the land?

The claimant uses the land agriculturally (to cut grass once a year) and to access other fields and I use the the road built on the land to access my home

The land was originally purchased for the purpose of building this road, to access my property, but was not included in the sale when I purchased it.

wazzoraybelle

NoQuarter wrote: »

The answer is no, a third party has no effect on whether a squatter gains adverse possession or not. If the paper owner has not been on the land in 12 years and there is a squatter there, the paper owner is in real trouble.

It is the case that the squatter has more rights to the land now than any third party. Like FS said though, there is most probably an easement over the land.

Edit: as above, Im assuming the claimant has either been living on the land or putting money into it and isnt just any oul joe soap.

I had thought that the claimant had to prove he possessed the land to the exclusion of all others.

234

In as much as the true owner cannot have been in possession at any point and no other "squatter" can have a better claim. If he is claiming adverse possession your actions in crossing the land are irrelevant, there are entirely a metter between you and the true owner. If you had permission, implied or express, to cross the land then you would hvae no claim to a right of way. If he has been using the land to grow crops, graze cattle etc. and the true owner has never set foot on the land then he may have a case, the test to determine if the actions of the squatter were enough to constitute possession is whether they would leave the owner in no doubt that the squatter was acting in a manner inconsistent with his title to the land. If the true owner even stopped in the middle of the road and looked at the land then this would be enough for him to be back in possession, albiet briefly, and the 12 year period would have started again.

wazzoraybelle

Thanks for all the replies, plenty food for thought.

would the fact that cutting the grass once a year could be construed as only an intermittent use of the land have a bearing?

would it not be more consistant with the claimant acquiring a profit a prendre over the land?

234

If all the squatter was doing was cutting the grass then he doesn't jave a hope in hell. Don't think cutting the grass would be a profit-a-prendre, might be different if he was cutting the grass, taking the cuttings from the land and putting them to some use, but just cutting the grass doesn't seem to fit into the nature of a profit.

wazzoraybelle

234 wrote: »

If all the squatter was doing was cutting the grass then he doesn't jave a hope in hell. Don't think cutting the grass would be a profit-a-prendre, might be different if he was cutting the grass, taking the cuttings from the land and putting them to some use, but just cutting the grass doesn't seem to fit into the nature of a profit.

Sorry, by cutting grass, I mean hay!

NoQuarter

Doesnt seem like enough to me, if I was the claimant I would get the tools out and start building

wazzoraybelle

Thanks again for all input. The reason for the question is that we have approached the paper title holder ( the state) to purchase this piece of land, and they have agreed, but have no more information on the land other than what we have provided them with.

I was looking at the relevant folio just now and the land was acquired in 54, however the title is possessory not absolute. Would this have any bearing on the farmers claim (if any)?

We will be dealing with solicitors in due course, I'm just interested in how this works.

234

Wait, the state only has possessory title to the land? Somebody with experience in the area will probably correct me but than seems very unusual. If you are thinking of buying the land the go straight to a solicitor as there are probably a myrriad of problems if you are buying a possesory title.

NoQuarter

FYI, time for adverse possession against the state is 30 years as opposed to 12 years for private persons!

Tom Young

Yes, the forum charter here does not allow for legal advice. The thread here is clearly about you OP. Go and seek the advice of a solicitor please. Rely on nothing here, per charter.

wazzoraybelle

Hi Tom,I fully accept that anything posted here is only opinion, I'm just trying to clue myself into the potential problems that may arise.

I have every intention of consulting a solicitor and I feel the input from people on this thread will help me be more informed and prepared for such a consultation.

Thanks