They purchased a half of trcat to west of disputed lands At time of purchase

They purchased a half of trcat to west of disputed

This preview shows page 9 - 12 out of 19 pages.

They purchased a half of trcat to west of disputed lands At time of purchase Putnam, original owner pointed out the boundries
Image of page 9
Gurwit relied on Putnmas description of boundries Putnam did actually have tite of the disputed land he pointed to Disputed lnd was bushy and wooded, no demarcation or fence to mark boundries, uncultivated, not for pasture Gurwitt possessed disputed 17acres lands for 20 years They osted signage indicating ownership At some point the def. gruender acknowledged ownership by the gurwits In 1983 Gruender advised Gurwit he d not title to the 17 acres From 1983 on, gyrwut paid the taxes Afterwards the Gurwits instituted a this quite title action, which included the 7 acre tract. The Gruender families were made efendent. They filed answers and a counterclaim, seeking to have the title to the 17acre tract. The gruender appealed the adver judgement Issue: wheter the trail court erred in granting judgment to Def, based on the evidence Rule: Advers possession is proved by the possession being hostile, that is under claim of right, actual, open and notrisous, exclusive and continuous over the stautaory period. Application: 1. Actual. - The gurwits possession was actual Possesion depend of the nature and location. The guriwts lived asome ways from the tract, but it was not nesscary for them to physically on the land. 2. Open and notorious, - Gurwit cut wood on the property , oicked up trash, and trimmed trees, all in the sight of passerbys 3. Exclusive - He owned the land for himself and not shared with another 4. Continuous. - Was continuous as the nature of the protery would permit from 1983 till the judgement. Conclusion: Trail court affirmed the ruling. The Gurwits did have tite based on advers poss. Case Brief: Van Valkenburgh v. lutz. Court of appeals NY. 106.N.E. 2d 28 (1952) Facts The Lutz (Def) purchased certain triangular shaped lots because the tracts were unpaved and steep, the Lutz reached their home by making a pth through the disputed tracts to reach their lands. By 1916, Lutz cleared much of the disputed parcel,
Image of page 10
farming on it until hus death in 1948. Lutz built a one room structure o the parcel for his brother 1937 V. V, purchased land west of the Lutz Gibson street property The two families had a fued No one paid taxes on disputed land, it went for foreclosure 1947 the V.V’s purchased deed to land for $379.50 Lutzs did not receive notice of forclosure sale. VV demanded the Lutzs vacte the disputed tract P.H. Lutz filed a suit against VV in 1947. (a) the VV owned title, but (b) that he was etitled to am easement to cross it. Lutz won the suit in 1948. VV suied the Lutz to obtain possession and relief The lutz asserted defense of adverse possession The courts found that lutz acquired title by adverse poss in 1935 The VV appealed Issue: whether trial court erred in granting title to Lutz under advser possession Rule: The essential elements of proof that the premisies (1) are protected by a substantial inclosure, or are (2) ususlaly cultivated or improved Application. I. Issue: Was there a Substantial enclosure
Image of page 11
Image of page 12

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture