100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 9 - 12 out of 19 pages.
They purchased a half of trcat to west of disputed landsAt time of purchase Putnam, original owner pointed out the boundries
Gurwit relied on Putnmas description of boundriesPutnam did actually have tite of the disputed land he pointed toDisputed lnd was bushy and wooded, no demarcation or fence to mark boundries, uncultivated, not for pastureGurwitt possessed disputed 17acres lands for 20 yearsThey osted signage indicating ownershipAt some point the def. gruender acknowledged ownership by the gurwitsIn 1983 Gruender advised Gurwit he d not title to the 17 acresFrom 1983 on, gyrwut paid the taxesAfterwards 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 judgementIssue: wheter the trail court erred in granting judgment to Def, based on the evidenceRule: 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 passerbys3.Exclusive-He owned the land for himself and not shared with another4.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 lotsbecause 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,
farming on it until hus death in 1948.Lutz built a one room structure o the parcel for his brother1937 V. V, purchased land west of the Lutz Gibson street propertyThe two families had a fuedNo one paid taxes on disputed land, it went for foreclosure1947 the V.V’s purchased deed to land for $379.50Lutzs did not receive notice of forclosure sale.VV demanded the Lutzs vacte the disputed tractP.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 reliefThe lutz asserted defense of adverse possessionThe courts found that lutz acquired title by adverse poss in 1935The VV appealedIssue: whether trial court erred in granting title to Lutz under advser possessionRule: The essential elements of proof that the premisies (1) are protected by a substantial inclosure, or are (2) ususlaly cultivated or improvedApplication.I.Issue: Was there a Substantial enclosure