adverse claim in Massachusetts

2021Bevilacqua v. Rodriquez, 460 Mass. 762 , 766 (2011), elaborates: There are thus two steps to a try title action: the first, which requires the plaintiff to establish jurisdictional facts such that the adverse claimant might be 'summoned to show cause why he should not bring an action to try his claim,' and the second, which requires the adverse claimant either to disclaim the relevant interest in the property or to bring an action to assert the claim in question.

2015In this regard, the analysis in Bevilacqua, 460 Mass. at 776 , where we held that “a necessary element of [a] try title action [is] the existence of an adverse claim” is instructive.

2015Id.

2011Id.

2000A party must show that he or she had a subjective honest belief in the legitimacy of the transaction ... a claim of bona fide purchaser status can be negated if the purchaser has an awareness, short of actual knowledge, of an adverse claim.” Id. at 575-76 .

1961See Dow v. Dow, supra, at p. 593 ; Foot v. Bauman, 333 Mass. 214, 217-218 ; Ottavia v. Savarese, 338 Mass. 330, 334 .

1961See Dow v. Dow, supra, at p. 593 ; Foot v. Bauman, 333 Mass. 214, 217-218 ; Ottavia v. Savarese, 338 Mass. 330, 334 .

1938Upon the facts found by the master, proof of actual knowledge of the plaintiffs or of the former owners of their land was not essential to the accrual of adverse rights, Samuels v. Borrowscale, 104 Mass. 207 ; Attorney General v. Ellis, 198 Mass. 91, 98 , as it could properly have been found that the nature of the changes made upon the locus during a long course of years “constituted notice to all the world ... of an adverse claim of title.” Phipps v. Crowell, 224 Mass. 342, 343 .

1938Upon the facts found by the master, proof of actual knowledge of the plaintiffs or of the former owners of their land was not essential to the accrual of adverse rights, Samuels v. Borrowscale, 104 Mass. 207 ; Attorney General v. Ellis, 198 Mass. 91, 98 , as it could properly have been found that the nature of the changes made upon the locus during a long course of years “constituted notice to all the world ... of an adverse claim of title.” Phipps v. Crowell, 224 Mass. 342, 343 .

1935Taft v. Bowker, 132 Mass. 277 .

1916Joyce v. Dyer, 189 Mass. 64, 68 .

1901It is true that the statute applies only to a record title clouded by an adverse claim, or by the possibility of such claim ; Arnold v. Reed, 162 Mass. 438 ; and that the petition must be brought by certain persons; yet the statute goes on to describe what the petitioner must set forth in his petition, namely, his interest, a description of the premises, the claims and the possible adverse claimants, so far as known to him.

1899As we, in common with many other American courts, hold the first carrier not answerable for the whole transit, and not subject to an adverse presumption, (Farmington Mercantile Co. v. Chicago, Burlington, Quincy Railroad, 166 Mass. 154 ,) it is almost necessary to call on the last carrier to explain the loss if the owner of the goods is to have any remedy at all.

1898The facts in the cases of Loring v. Hildreth, 170 Mass. 328 , and Loring v. Whitney, 167 Mass. 550 , furnish an illustration of a cloud within the statute.

1898The facts in the cases of Loring v. Hildreth, 170 Mass. 328 , and Loring v. Whitney, 167 Mass. 550 , furnish an illustration of a cloud within the statute.