Adverse Possession Lisa and Danny Case Study

  • Uncategorized

AdversePossession: Lisa and Danny Case Study


AdversePossession: Lisa and Danny Case Study

Theadverse possession law allows an illegal land occupant to make legalclaims on land owned by another individual. The clause dictates that,if a ‘squatter’ lives in an area through hostile engagements fora defined statutory period, then he or she becomes the legal owner ifthe relationship meets the policies defined by the adverse possessionpolicy (Bradley &amp Siegel, 2015). Due to the differences in landownership laws, every government has a specific adverse policy thatmeets the demands of the property owners. However, despite thedisparities, there are the standardized clauses that most governmentsinclude in their adverse policy. In Lisa and Danny case study, Lisahas a legal claim on the property on which her Gazebo rests. Thearticle examines the distinctive adverse policy requirements andrationalizes the legal rights held by Lisa over Danny. There are fiveprimary elements of adverse possession.

Accordingto Qiao (2014), the statutory period is the first criteria indetermining the legality of ownership claim. In this case, Lisa hadoccupied Danny’s property for fifteen years in a State that has astatutory period of fifteen years. As such, she can claim theproperty if she meets the other requirements of the adversepossession. The law also dictates on the nature of possession duringthe statutory period. Firstly, the occupant must be open andnotorious. The open and notorious clause requires utmost opennessduring and after the possession and no efforts to remain unknown asthe land occupant. Lisa constructed the Gazebo with utmost opennessand later fenced to show her claim on the property.

Secondly,the occupant must have exclusively occupied the property withoutsharing it with the rightful owner with or without an agreement. Theexclusivity reduces the adverse possession claims among individualsrenting or sharing space with the rightful owner (Stake, 2016). Inthis case, it is vital to incorporate the clause of hostileoccupation. The adverse possession dictates that the nature of theoccupation must challenge the interests of the initial owner. Theclause might include the extension of a fence to reduce the floorarea of the real owner. The engagement between Lisa and Danny meetsthe hostile clause thus allowing her to make a legal claim on theland.

Inadditional to the four clauses that regulate the nature of theoccupation, the law also dictates on uninterrupted occupation duringthe statutory period. As explained by Krier (2014), the clause positsthat, for an individual to qualify for the benefits of the adversepossession clause he must occupy the property in obvious anduninterrupted nature.

Whenmaking a decision on the case, the court will consider the objectivesof the adverse possession, which include ensuring productive use ofland, creating continuity, and punishing individuals underutilizingtheir ownership rights. In this case, the court proceedings wouldfavor Lisa if Danny decided to proceed with the case. It is evidentthat Danny did not know of the ownership rights thus allowing Lisa tooccupy the property. The survey notwithstanding, Danny did notconsider himself as the owner of the property. On the other hand, thenature of the occupation, development of the property, and the lengthof possession shows that Lisa though the land her own. The factsqualify Lisa for the adverse possession acquisition despite therights of the real owner of the property.


Bradley,C. A., &amp Siegel, N. S. (2015). After Recess: Historical Practice,Textual Ambiguity,

andConstitutional Adverse Possession.&nbspTheSupreme Court Review,&nbsp2014(1),1-69.

Krier,J. E., &amp Serkin, C. (2014). The Possession Heuristic.

Qiao,S. (2014). Small Property, Adverse Possession and Optional Law.

Stake,J. E. (2016). Property Law Reflections of a Sense of Right and Wrong.In&nbspThe

Evolutionof Morality&nbsp(pp.277-287). Springer International Publishing.