Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 801 (2026)

Rights of entry and action barred in 20 years

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No person shall commence any real or mixed action for the recovery of lands, or make an entry thereon, unless within 20 years after the right to do so first accrued, or unless within 20 years after he or those under whom he claims were seized or possessed of the premises, except as provided in this subchapter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases, 1976–2018 · leading case: Dowley v. Morency, 1999 ME 137 (Me. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dowley v. Morency, 1999 ME 137 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “See 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 801, 816 (1980). 4 . Technically, a declaratory judgment is a type of remedy.”

Kobritz v. Severance, 912 A.2d 1237 (Me. 2007). · cites it 2× “14 M.R.S. § 801 (2005). 2 The conveyances at issue here occurred in 1982, and Jordan Kobritz did not file this action to recover the farm until 2005, that is, twenty-three years later.”

Loavenbruck v. Rohrbach, 2002 ME 73 (Me. 2002). · cites it 2× “The Loavenbrucks also appeal from the trial court’s decision, asserting that the applicable statute of limitations, 14 M.R.S.A. § 801 (1980), is an absolute 20-year statute of limitations against untimely actions, and any claim for the recovery of the parcel by Rohr-bach is…”

Dombkowski v. Ferland, 2006 ME 24 (Me. 2006). “2d at 993 (quotation marks omitted); see also 14 M.R.S. § 801 (2005). [¶ 30] Ferland argues that the evidence was insufficient for the court to find the twenty-year prescriptive period satisfied for the entire parcel because the clearing process was incremental over many years,…”

McMullen v. Dowley, 483 A.2d 698 (Me. 1984). · cites it 3× “The Dowleys answered and counterclaimed, asserting that they and their predecessors had established title through adverse possession under 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 801, 815 or 816 (1980). The case was tried without a jury in Superior Court, Washington County, as a declaratory judgment on…”

Johnson v. Town of Dedham, 490 A.2d 1187 (Me. 1985). · cites it 2× “On appeal, Dedham contends that the Superior Court erroneously concluded that (1) Johnson’s action was not time-barred by 14 M.R.S.A. § 801 (1980), 14 M.R.S.A. § 816 (1980), or by the doctrine of laches; (2) a specific finding that Johnson, and those through whom he claimed,…”

Tallwood Land & Dev. Co. v. Botka, 352 A.2d 753 (Me. 1976). “Defendants allege in their complaint that they have gained title to the disputed land by adversely possessing it for more than 20 years under 14 M.R.S.A. § 801 et seq. and that the summary judgment could be upheld on these grounds.”

Stowell v. Swift, 576 A.2d 204 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “We hold that the District Court properly found that Stowell had established the prerequisites of title by adverse possession pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 801 and 816 (1980) and Johnson v.”

Auburn Harpswell Ass'n v. Day, 438 A.2d 234 (Me. 1981). “14 M.R.S.A. § 801. The presiding justice was correct in finding that the plaintiffs had proved record title in themselves and that the Days’ claim of title was unsubstantiated.”

McMullen v. Dowley, 418 A.2d 1147 (Me. 1980). “The Dowleys, appellants here, counterclaimed, seeking an adjudication that they and their predecessors had established title through adverse possession under 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 801, 815, or 816 (1980). As a result of a stipulation of the parties, the matter was tried without a jury…”

Crosby v. Baizley, 642 A.2d 150 (Me. 1994). “14 M.R.S.A. § 801 (1980). 5 . Because Crosby does not prevail on his claim for adverse possession or acquiescence, we need not address his remaining contentions on this appeal.”

Maine Gravel Servs., Inc. v. Haining, 1998 ME 18 (Me. 1998). “In concluding that the defendants had established their adverse possession claim, the trial court did not make clear whether it was relying on 14 M.R.S.A. § 801 (1980) or the common law.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

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.