Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 5-204 (2026)
Action arising out of claim to title or rents or profits.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Action arising out of claim to title or rents or profits.
No cause of action, or defense to an action, arising out of the title to real property, or to rents or profits out of the same, can be effectual unless it appears that the person prosecuting the action, or making the defense, or under whose title the action is prosecuted or the defense is made, or the ancestor, predecessor or grantor, of such person, was seized or possessed of the premises in question within twenty (20) years before the commencement of the act in respect to which such action is prosecuted or defense made.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case: Blake v. Blake, 205 P.2d 495 (Idaho 1949).
Blake v. Blake, 205 P.2d 495 (Idaho 1949). “rrevocably”, and that appellant is now estopped by the passage of time and acquiescence in respondents’ acts to claim contrary to said agreement, and additional allegations with regard to the interest and disinterest of appellant in various pieces of property, the details…”
Dickerson v. Brewster, 399 P.2d 407 (Idaho 1965). “§ 5-203, which provides: “No action for the recovery of real property, or for the recovery of the possession thereof, can be maintained, unless it appear that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor or grantor, was seized or possessed of the property in question within five…”
Easterling v. Hal Pac. Props., L.P. (Idaho 2021). “Identical changes were made to the time for bringing actions arising from the adverse possession of real property, such as claims for title to, or rents or profits from, real property (I.C. § 5-204), constructive possession (I.”
Easterling v. Hal Pac. Props., L.P. (Idaho 2023). “Identical changes were made to the time for bringing actions arising from the adverse possession of real property, such as claims for title to, or rents or profits from, real property (I.C. § 5-204), constructive possession (I.”
Easterling v. Clark (Idaho 2025). “Indeed, the Easterlings addressed section 5-204 in their briefing and section 5-224 at oral argument on the summary judgment motion, 5 arguing that Idaho’s common law and public policy considerations prevented application of any statute of limitations to easements by necessity.”
Easterling v. Clark (Idaho 2025). “Indeed, the Easterlings addressed section 5-204 in their briefing and section 5-224 at oral argument on the summary judgment motion, 5 arguing that Idaho’s common law and public policy considerations prevented application of any statute of limitations to easements by necessity.”
Obermeyer v. Idohl, 278 P.2d 188 (Idaho 1954). “00; that the description of said house and/or lot as a house and/or lot at Grimes Pass without more was and is so indefinite and uncertain as to render said assessment invalid.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.