Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
8 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Intro |
If the owner of property fails within a certain period of time to secure the eviction of a squatter from his land, his title is extinguished. The rationale for AP is that it "give effect to the pragmatic expectation, born no doubt in the more physical climate of earlier times, that a property owner will rise with rugged fortitude to assert his title against unlawful intruders". It is the policy of quieting title, as "vigilantibus ton dormientibus lex succurit" |
|
|
The Meaning of Adverse Possession |
It has the simple meaning of possession of land which is inconsistent with the title of the true owner. It permits time to run against the true owner unless he takes steps to dispossess the squatter within the time limit, i.e 12 years. Murphy v Murphy the possession must be inconsistent with the title of the true owner, irrespective of whether either party is aware of true ownership. There must also be an intention to exclude the true owner. |
|
|
Statute of Limitations 1957 |
S13(2) provides for 12 years after which no action can be brought, or 30 years for a state authority. S18 provides that there will be no right of action unless the possession by some person whose favour the period of limitation can run. |
|
|
Effect of the Dispossessed Owner |
Both the right of action and the title are deemed extinguished. For some time in England it was found that the title was transferred to the squatter, but this was rejected in Tichborne v Weir where it merely extinguished the title of the true owner. In Ireland, the effect is that the title to land is secure with the squatter provided that nobody can assert a better claim. The owner of an interest such as an easement will not be effected. |
|
|
Leasehold Property |
Fairweather v St Marlebone Prop Ltd the lessee had been dispossessed and not the lessor, therefore at the end of the lease the property reverts back to the owner, unless the lessee surrenders the lease, and then the squatter can be ejected, but this violated 'nemo dat quod non habat' - nobody can give what he does not have. Perry v Woodfarm Homes Irish courts rejected the above. The property could not then be conveyed as the title had been extinguished by adverse possession. Griffin v Bleithin a notice to quit was issued but not acted upon, successfully claimed AP |
|
|
Possession Required |
Inconsistent with that of the holder of the paper title - nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. Doyle v O'Neill the adverse user must be of a definite and positive character and such as could leave no doubt in the mind of a landowner alerted to his rights that occupation was adverse Factual Possession and Intention to Dispossess Murphy v Murphy Bellew v Bellew breakdown of negotiations meant replacement of lease was impossible and therefore time began to run. Possession Powell v McFarlane 14y.o boy had began to graze a cow without permission. The owner visited occasionally, and it was found that animus pessidendi was lacking. Seddon v Smith enclosure is the strongest possible evidence of AP Feeham v Leamy walking the property several times a year and peering over the hedge or gate from the road was a sufficient act of ownership Redhouse Farms Ltd strip of marshy land used for shooting - possessionDS |
|
|
Future Intention of Owner |
Leigh v Jack acts not inconsistent with true owners future intention, no AP Cork Corp v Lynch followed the above Durack Manufacturing the principle of future intent only has relevance in so far as it affects the mind of the squatter. LRC recommend a provision be enacted to say that "adverse possession should be defined as possession inconsistent with the title of the true owner and not possession inconsistent with the intention of the true owner." |
|
|
Successive Squatters & Human Rights |
Mount Carmel Investment Pye v Graham human rights not violated, as "control of use" rather than "deprivation of possessions" |
