Teresa V. Graham's Mushroom Patch Issues: Case Study

Improved Essays
1) Teresa v Graham
Graham’s Mushroom Patch Issues
Graham’s license to use the mushroom patch on Apple Manor was terminated in the summer of 1991 but Graham kept on using the land. Graham is in a position to make a claim to be registered as a proprietor of the mushroom patch land, which Teresa wants to stop.

Adverse Possession
Benedetta’s name is on the legal title of Apple Manor making her the original proprietor owner of the land. Teresa would have to take action on Benedetta’s behalf or advise her on what to do as she is only a beneficiary. Grahams claim for proprietorship to the mushroom patch stems from the informal acquisition of legal title by registration from adverse possession. The act of allowing acquisition of title through adverse possession is to make sure that the land is put to good use and not neglected. Adverse possession happens when a person occupies another’s land without permission for a certain period of time resulting in the land becoming theirs. This has no effect until an application for registration has been submitted and the adverse possession was continued for at least 10 years immediately prior. If Graham was to make an application for registration and it
…show more content…
Teresa is not able to dispossess Graham through eviction or take back possession as the expiry of the limitation period to defeat the claim as occurred. Instead, if Graham has not made an application for registration then Teresa could end the period of adverse possession by getting Graham to end adverse possession or getting a judgement for possession. To end adverse possession Graham would need to formally acknowledge Benedetta’s proprietary ownership title, made in writing and signed. Similarly, if Teresa was to get Graham to make a payment for the land or to enter a licence then continuity of adverse possession would

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Susette Kelo Case Summary

    • 1135 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The state of Connecticut has the right to take property for the growth of the economy, but taking property from owners that have already owned and claimed the property is wrong and the public felt that they violated the Fifth Amendment. The takings were qualified as “public use”, when the property was sold to private developers and the land was not going to be used by the public, and the fifth Amendment also stated that the taking clause did not require “literal” public use. I feel like the homeowners should’ve did research and filed a Petition for Eviction from Residential Premises. They sued the state of New London and like Susette said, they’re basically stealing her home, as well as the other homeowners knowing that the property their taking is not going to be used for a public use. All they told this woman was that her property was hers until they found someone else willing to pay way more for it.…

    • 1135 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    South Carolina Coastal Council were the Lucas’ property was essentially a “taking” of his property for a public purpose and therefore according to the Fifth Amendment he should have been compensated by the state for the loss of his personal property. David Lucas never questioned the states exercise of their police powers only his Constitutional right to be compensated for the taking of his property value. The state argued that they didn’t physically take the Lucas’ ocean front property they merely changed the planned purpose of the property, for the environmental greater good of society, resulting in a loss of investment but not a loss of property and they are not legally responsible for the reduction of the properties’ value. The state also stated in their respondent, that the Lucas’s knew there would be restrictions placed on his land that would reduce the property’s value, and that he could not expect that he would be free from government restrictions in the future.…

    • 1084 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    B) The Nordstrom security guard did not have constructive possession of Marshall’s property because he did not have the special relationship required to establish constructive possession. One of the ways constructive possession is satisfied is if one has a special relationship with the employer. See, e.g., People v. Galoia, 31 Cal. App. 4th, 595 (1994) (finding no special relationship when a “Good Samaritan” lacked sufficient interest in the property being taken).…

    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Justice O’Connor, argues yes: because the property is not causing an “inflicted affirmative harm on society,” it cannot be taken by the government (501). John Locke might also argue yes: Kelo’s…

    • 1151 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Claimant: The claimant must have possessory rights…

    • 1789 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Kelo Case

    • 885 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The Issue: Does the taking of the petitioner’s properties violate the “public use” restriction in the fifth amendment’s taking clause or is the “public use” clause valid for purposes of betterment for the community as a whole. Holding: The court ruled that the petitioner’s…

    • 885 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Tsilhqot Case Analysis

    • 1517 Words
    • 7 Pages

    This implies that provincial and federal governments cannot abuse their exclusive jurisdictions and take away titled land holders rights (paragraph 10). The courts made it so governments have to have a liable justification to be on titled land (CBC News, Tsilhqot' in First Nation Granted B.C. Title...). The only reasons they can develop on claimed land is if the project is pressing/substantial or it receives permission from the Aboriginal group (CBC News, Tsilhqot' in First Nation Granted B.C.…

    • 1517 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In The Dawes Act (1887), “There were also problems with inheritance. Often young children inherited allotments that they could not farm…

    • 627 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    1. In this scenario I would have committed the intentional tort of trespass to land. There are three parts needed in order to commit trespass to land and they are; some affirmative action by the defendant, intention to enter the real property of another, and the actual entry of that property.…

    • 216 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Fifth Amendment Essay

    • 1608 Words
    • 7 Pages

    (US Const. Amend. V, sec. 3) The fifth amendment fails to protect the individual from the unjust seizure of land from the government, for there is no clause that allows for protecting one’s land if not compelled to sell. Even when given the right, the…

    • 1608 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Through the years, it has been unclear to many people whether or not eminent domain has been used correctly. Many people disagree, but those are the people who have been affected by it directly. The opinions on this question are mostly biased, but looking at it from an outside standpoint, eminent domain is being used correctly. The Fifth Amendment states that the government has the right to take private property if they can prove that the property is going to be used for public use.…

    • 506 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Elmer Stoltzfus Failed to Meet the Raised Standard for the Adverse & Hostile Element of Adverse Possession. A. Elmer’s use of the land was not adverse and hostile because it was permitted by Sabrina. To be considered hostile and adverse, Elmer would have had to act unequivocally, outwardly, and irreconcilably with Sabrina’s ownership interests for the statutory ten years. Golden, 180 Mo. at 204. Sabrina’s verbal permission for Elmer to “do whatever you want” to the farm defeats Elmer’s adverse possession claim.…

    • 1115 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Nuisance can be separated into private, public and statutory nuisance. Private nuisance is “ the unreasonable use of man of his land to the detriment of his neighbour (Miller v. Jackson [1977] QB 966 (CA); 3 All ER 338) and can only be claimed by the individual affected that has an interest in the land . The potential defendants can be the creators of the nuisance, regardless of whether they are also the occupiers of the property .…

    • 1023 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    In this essay I will be advising Eric on certain ways to severe the property and explaining the differences between joint tenancy and tenancy in common. I will be using relevant case law and statues to prove my advisory. Starting off, when Tom died he left his property Mason Towers off to his 5 children, assuming this is after the 1926 the children will be held as joint tenants instead of tenants in common. However, in the law it states that there can only be a maximum of 4 joint tenants, so the first four listed names will be held as joint tenants. Also because Bill is only 16 he will need to wait until 18 to get a share of the property.…

    • 1419 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Case Law 531 Week 3 Quiz

    • 1574 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Answer: Yes, Bo would be entitled to recover his $1,000 payment plus the $150 cost of clearing the land. He has the option to rescind his contract. Also, Sadia had knowledge and consent that Bo was going to had Lot No. 2 cleared of brush. Therefore, he should be able to get the money back for the cost of clearing the land. (g) Assume that on March 1.…

    • 1574 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays