adverse possession claim in Maine

2006Under this approach, which is considered the minority rule in the country, “one who by mistake occupies ... land not covered by his deed with no intention to claim title beyond his actual boundary wherever that may be, does not thereby acquire title by adverse possession to land beyond the true line.” Preble, 85 Me. at 264 , 27 A. at 150 ; see also McMullen, 483 A.2d at 700 (“[If] the occupier intend[s] to hold the property only if he were in fact legally entitled to it[, the] occupation [is] ‘conditional’ and [cannot] form the basis of an adverse possession claim.”). 3 The majority rule in th

1994See also McMullen v. Dowley, 483 A.2d 698, 700 (Me. 1984) (if occupier intends to hold the property only if he were in fact legally entitled to it, the occupation is conditional and cannot form the basis of an adverse possession claim.) 4 “It is primarily for the factfinder to judge the credibility of witnesses and to consider the weight and significance of any other evidence.

2001Such an occupation would be conditional and could. not form the basis of an adverse possession claim. /d. (citing Landry v. Giguere, 127 Me. 264, 268 , 143 A 1, 2-3 (1928)4.

1989Id. (citing Landry v. Giguere, 127 Me. 264, 268 , 143 A. 1, 2-3 (1928)).

2001Adverse Possession The defendants allege in Counterclaim Count II that they have title to the center of Horseshoe Road “by adverse possession having possessed and occupied [the] premises for more than 20 years, in an open, notorious, hostile, continuous and exclusive manner under a claim of right.” “Title by adverse possession may be established either pursuant to the common law or statutory provisions.” Striefel v. Charles-Keyt-Leaman, 1999 ME 111, 95 , 733 A.2d 984, 989 .

2001Adverse Possession The defendants allege in Counterclaim Count II that they have title to the center of Horseshoe Road “by adverse possession having possessed and occupied [the] premises for more than 20 years, in an open, notorious, hostile, continuous and exclusive manner under a claim of right.” “Title by adverse possession may be established either pursuant to the common law or statutory provisions.” Striefel v. Charles-Keyt-Leaman, 1999 ME 111, 95 , 733 A.2d 984, 989 .

2019This satisfies the common law element of a "claim ofright." And the statutory formulation of an adverse possession claim under 14 lvI.R.S .A. §_ 810­ A does not require proof of a claim of right, see Dombkowski, 2006 ME 24 , PP24.

2008“We will uphold the court’s determination of the facts underlying an adverse possession claim if the findings are supported by credible evidence in the record.” Id.

2014Weeks v. Krysa, 2008 ME 120, ¶¶ 12, 21 , 955 A.2d 234 (holding that evidence of occasional, seasonal use of an undeveloped lot was insufficient to support an adverse possession claim). [¶ 29] Relying on the doctrine of constructive adverse possession, however, the Court holds that a person can obtain equitable title to an entire parcel if the parcel is described in the person’s deed and the person has occupied “a portion of that parcel in a manner sufficient to establish title by adverse possession.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 7 (citing Campbell v. Whitehouse, 122 Me. 409, 417 , 120 A. 529 (1923); Bant

2014Weeks v. Krysa, 2008 ME 120, ¶¶ 12, 21 , 955 A.2d 234 (holding that evidence of occasional, seasonal use of an undeveloped lot was insufficient to support an adverse possession claim). [¶ 29] Relying on the doctrine of constructive adverse possession, however, the Court holds that a person can obtain equitable title to an entire parcel if the parcel is described in the person’s deed and the person has occupied “a portion of that parcel in a manner sufficient to establish title by adverse possession.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 7 (citing Campbell v. Whitehouse, 122 Me. 409, 417 , 120 A. 529 (1923); Bant

2024See Grimstad v. Dordan, 471 P.2d 778, 781 (Or. 1970) (holding that possession of property in regard to an adverse possession claim does not have to be 27 absolutely exclusive if the possession is of the kind expected of an owner under the circumstances, such that a disseisor may give permission to others to make some use of the subject property); Bensdorff v. Uihlein, 177 S.W. 481 , 483 (Tenn. 1915) (holding that mere use of property with the permission of the disseisor will not destroy the disseisor’s adverse possession claim); Peveto v. Herring, 198 S.W.2d 921, 925 (Tex. Civ.

2024See Grimstad v. Dordan, 471 P.2d 778, 781 (Or. 1970) (holding that possession of property in regard to an adverse possession claim does not have to be 27 absolutely exclusive if the possession is of the kind expected of an owner under the circumstances, such that a disseisor may give permission to others to make some use of the subject property); Bensdorff v. Uihlein, 177 S.W. 481 , 483 (Tenn. 1915) (holding that mere use of property with the permission of the disseisor will not destroy the disseisor’s adverse possession claim); Peveto v. Herring, 198 S.W.2d 921, 925 (Tex. Civ.

2021See generally DiVeto v. Kjellgren, 2004 ME 133, ¶ 24 , 861 A.2d 618 (holding that one who does not own a parcel cannot maintain a claim of title by acquiescence or a claim of trespass); Laux v. Harrington, 2012 ME 18 , ¶ 24 n.4, 38 A.3d 318 (noting that a party arguing for easement rights on behalf of non-parties may not have standing to assert such rights).

2021See generally DiVeto v. Kjellgren, 2004 ME 133, ¶ 24 , 861 A.2d 618 (holding that one who does not own a parcel cannot maintain a claim of title by acquiescence or a claim of trespass); Laux v. Harrington, 2012 ME 18 , ¶ 24 n.4, 38 A.3d 318 (noting that a party arguing for easement rights on behalf of non-parties may not have standing to assert such rights).

2015See Baptist Youth Camp v. Robinson, 1998 ME 175 , ,-r 14, 714 A.2d 809 ; see also Alexander, Maine Jury Instruction Manual§ 7-90 at 7-125 (2013 ed.) (illustrating prescriptive easement as 7 Uw evidence presented regarding adverse possession was largely unopposed.

2015See Baptist Youth Camp v. Robinson, 1998 ME 175 , ,-r 14, 714 A.2d 809 ; see also Alexander, Maine Jury Instruction Manual§ 7-90 at 7-125 (2013 ed.) (illustrating prescriptive easement as 7 Uw evidence presented regarding adverse possession was largely unopposed.

2014We have likewise held that there is insufficient proof of adverse possession where the claimant’s use of only a portion of the land did not put the landowner on notice of the adverse possession, and much of the disputed area was “overgrown with bushes and weeds.” Harkins v. Fuller, 652 A.2d 90, 92 (Me.1995). [¶ 15] Since 1983, Hanscom openly and notoriously possessed the land on which her garage and driveway sit.

2014Weeks v. Krysa, 2008 ME 120, ¶¶ 12, 21 , 955 A.2d 234 (holding that evidence of occasional, seasonal use of an undeveloped lot was insufficient to support an adverse possession claim). [¶ 29] Relying on the doctrine of constructive adverse possession, however, the Court holds that a person can obtain equitable title to an entire parcel if the parcel is described in the person’s deed and the person has occupied “a portion of that parcel in a manner sufficient to establish title by adverse possession.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 7 (citing Campbell v. Whitehouse, 122 Me. 409, 417 , 120 A. 529 (1923); Bant

2014Weeks v. Krysa, 2008 ME 120, ¶¶ 12, 21 , 955 A.2d 234 (holding that evidence of occasional, seasonal use of an undeveloped lot was insufficient to support an adverse possession claim). [¶29] Relying on the doctrine of constructive adverse possession, however, the Court holds that a person can obtain equitable title to an entire parcel if the parcel is described in the person’s deed and the person has occupied “a portion of that parcel in a manner sufficient to establish title by adverse possession.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 7 (citing Campbell v. Whitehouse, 122 Me. 409, 417 , 120 A. 529 (1923); Banto

2012See Richards Realty Co. v. Inhabitants of Town of Castle Hill, 406 A.2d 412, 413 (Me.1979) (addressing an adverse possession claim pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 815 (2011)).

2011Hamlin, 2008 ME 130 , err 14, 955 A.2d at 255. 4.

2008See Totman v. Malloy, 431 Mass. 143 , 725 N.E.2d 1045 , 1048-49 n. 5 (2000) (listing jurisdictions adopting a presumption of permission or requiring a heightened showing of hostility when a familial relationship exists); see also 3 Am.Jur. 2d Adverse Possession § 180 (2002) (discussing the general principle that stronger evidence of adverse possession, including a showing that the owner had clear, unequivocal notice, is required in matters involving family members); 4 Hebekt T.

2008Lyons v. Baptist Sch. of Christian Training, 2002 ME 137, ¶¶ 14, 19 , 804 A.2d 364, 369, 370 .

2008Lyons v. Baptist Sch. of Christian Training, 2002 ME 137, ¶¶ 14, 19 , 804 A.2d 364, 369, 370 .

2008A party claiming title by adverse possession has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the possession and use of the property was “(1) actual; (2) open; (3) visible; (4) notorious; (5) hostile; (6) under a claim of right; (7) continuous; (8) exclusive; and (9) of a duration exceeding the twenty-year limitations period.” Wood v. Bell, 2006 ME 98, ¶ 12 , 902 A.2d 843, 848 (quotation marks omitted). 1.

2006Under this approach, which is considered the minority rule in the country, “one who by mistake occupies ... land not covered by his deed with no intention to claim title beyond his actual boundary wherever that may be, does not thereby acquire title by adverse possession to land beyond the true line.” Preble, 85 Me. at 264 , 27 A. at 150 ; see also McMullen, 483 A.2d at 700 (“[If] the occupier intend[s] to hold the property only if he were in fact legally entitled to it[, the] occupation [is] ‘conditional’ and [cannot] form the basis of an adverse possession claim.”). 3 The majority rule in th