Adverse Possession: Chaplin v Sanders
The “hostility/claim of right” element of adverse possession requires only that the claimant treat the land as his own as against the world throughout the statutory period. 183The nature of his possession will be determined solely on the basis of the manner in which he treats the property. His subjective belief regarding his true interest in the land and his intent to dispossess or not dispossess another is irrelevant to this determination. Under this analysis, permission to occupy the land, given by the true title owner to the claimant or his predecessors in interest, will still operate to negate the element of hostility. The traditional presumptions still apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with this ruling.
Chaplin v. Sanders, 676 P.2d at 436.
My question is regarding the bolded portion of the case. Here, when it says negate does it mean that the hostility element no longer applies? Or does it mean that there is a failure to meet this element?
united-states property
edited Dec 17 '18 at 7:51
Community♦
1
asked Dec 17 '18 at 3:04
S JS J
36714
add a comment |
The “hostility/claim of right” element of adverse possession requires only that the claimant treat the land as his own as against the world throughout the statutory period. 183The nature of his possession will be determined solely on the basis of the manner in which he treats the property. His subjective belief regarding his true interest in the land and his intent to dispossess or not dispossess another is irrelevant to this determination. Under this analysis, permission to occupy the land, given by the true title owner to the claimant or his predecessors in interest, will still operate to negate the element of hostility. The traditional presumptions still apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with this ruling.
Chaplin v. Sanders, 676 P.2d at 436.
My question is regarding the bolded portion of the case. Here, when it says negate does it mean that the hostility element no longer applies? Or does it mean that there is a failure to meet this element?
united-states property
edited Dec 17 '18 at 7:51
Community♦
1
asked Dec 17 '18 at 3:04
S JS J
36714
add a comment |
The “hostility/claim of right” element of adverse possession requires only that the claimant treat the land as his own as against the world throughout the statutory period. 183The nature of his possession will be determined solely on the basis of the manner in which he treats the property. His subjective belief regarding his true interest in the land and his intent to dispossess or not dispossess another is irrelevant to this determination. Under this analysis, permission to occupy the land, given by the true title owner to the claimant or his predecessors in interest, will still operate to negate the element of hostility. The traditional presumptions still apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with this ruling.
Chaplin v. Sanders, 676 P.2d at 436.
My question is regarding the bolded portion of the case. Here, when it says negate does it mean that the hostility element no longer applies? Or does it mean that there is a failure to meet this element?
united-states property
edited Dec 17 '18 at 7:51
Community♦
1
asked Dec 17 '18 at 3:04
S JS J
36714
The “hostility/claim of right” element of adverse possession requires only that the claimant treat the land as his own as against the world throughout the statutory period. 183The nature of his possession will be determined solely on the basis of the manner in which he treats the property. His subjective belief regarding his true interest in the land and his intent to dispossess or not dispossess another is irrelevant to this determination. Under this analysis, permission to occupy the land, given by the true title owner to the claimant or his predecessors in interest, will still operate to negate the element of hostility. The traditional presumptions still apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with this ruling.
Chaplin v. Sanders, 676 P.2d at 436.
My question is regarding the bolded portion of the case. Here, when it says negate does it mean that the hostility element no longer applies? Or does it mean that there is a failure to meet this element?
united-states property
united-states property
edited Dec 17 '18 at 7:51
Community♦
1
asked Dec 17 '18 at 3:04
S JS J
36714
edited Dec 17 '18 at 7:51
Community♦
1
asked Dec 17 '18 at 3:04
S JS J
36714
edited Dec 17 '18 at 7:51
Community♦
1
edited Dec 17 '18 at 7:51
Community♦
1
edited Dec 17 '18 at 7:51
Community♦
1
1
asked Dec 17 '18 at 3:04
S JS J
36714
asked Dec 17 '18 at 3:04
S JS J
36714
asked Dec 17 '18 at 3:04
S JS J
36714
36714
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It means: if I give you permission to occupy my property then you are not occupying it with "hostility" and adverse possession will not come into effect providing that we both remain within the terms of our agreement for your occupation.
answered Dec 17 '18 at 3:30
Dale MDale M
51.1k23072
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35451%2fadverse-possession-chaplin-v-sanders%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It means: if I give you permission to occupy my property then you are not occupying it with "hostility" and adverse possession will not come into effect providing that we both remain within the terms of our agreement for your occupation.
answered Dec 17 '18 at 3:30
Dale MDale M
51.1k23072
add a comment |
It means: if I give you permission to occupy my property then you are not occupying it with "hostility" and adverse possession will not come into effect providing that we both remain within the terms of our agreement for your occupation.
answered Dec 17 '18 at 3:30
Dale MDale M
51.1k23072
add a comment |
It means: if I give you permission to occupy my property then you are not occupying it with "hostility" and adverse possession will not come into effect providing that we both remain within the terms of our agreement for your occupation.
answered Dec 17 '18 at 3:30
Dale MDale M
51.1k23072
It means: if I give you permission to occupy my property then you are not occupying it with "hostility" and adverse possession will not come into effect providing that we both remain within the terms of our agreement for your occupation.
answered Dec 17 '18 at 3:30
Dale MDale M
51.1k23072
answered Dec 17 '18 at 3:30
Dale MDale M
51.1k23072
answered Dec 17 '18 at 3:30
Dale MDale M
51.1k23072
answered Dec 17 '18 at 3:30
Dale MDale M
51.1k23072
51.1k23072
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35451%2fadverse-possession-chaplin-v-sanders%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
