home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!gatech!news.ans.net!cmcl2!adm!smoke!matt
- From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
- Newsgroups: misc.legal
- Subject: Re: Adverse Possession
- Summary: Maryland case where a private party wins.
- Keywords: Sovereign
- Message-ID: <19493@smoke.brl.mil>
- Date: 22 Dec 92 19:37:30 GMT
- References: <1h524fINNcbl@meaddata.meaddata.com> <19489@smoke.brl.mil> <1992Dec22.090521.1276@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab, APG MD.
- Lines: 73
-
- In article <1992Dec22.090521.1276@midway.uchicago.edu>
- thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
-
- >In article <19489@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
- >writes:
-
- >>In article <1h524fINNcbl@meaddata.meaddata.com> joem@meaddata.com
- >>(Joe Mehrle) writes:
-
- >>>In fact adverse possession is most often used against a
- >>>state, particularly in wild forest areas. [Joe Mehrle]
-
- >>The original poster -- the fellow who is wondering whether he
- >>can use adverse possession or easement by prescription [against]
- >>City Hall -- would probably be interested in seeing cases
- >>illustrating this statement. [Matt Rosenblatt]
-
- >. . .
- >Well, one case where an exception was made for land held by a sovereign
- >in its private capacity and not for public use is Hinckley v New York,
- >234 NY 309 (1922). There are undoubtably others, but there don't appear
- >to be enough of them to prevent the prefacing "In general," etc.
- >[Ted Frank]
-
- Here's a case reported in Lee Baylin's "Rulings" column in today's
- (December 22) _Daily Record_, the business and legal newspaper of
- the Baltimore, Maryland, area:
-
- -------------
- Real Property
- -------------
- Adverse Possession
-
- Adverse possession can be gained against property offered
- to a public entity but never accepted, the Maryland Court of
- Special Appeals has held.
-
- The case involved a strip of land between two homesites in
- Cecil County. The sites were subdivided in 1945 and a public
- street was laid out between the two lots. The street, however
- was never developed and the local government never accepted
- the offer of dedication of the street.
-
- For over 30 years, the owner[s] of the two lots used the
- street area as a yard. They graded it, planted grass and shrubs
- and partially fenced it.
-
- When in 1991 the owners sought to build on the adjacent lot,
- which was too small to develop under present regulations without
- the offered street, the Town of Charleston sought to accept the
- 1940s offer of dedication of the public street.
-
- The trial court said it was too late and the CSA agreed.
-
- The CSA acknowledged that adverse possession was normally not
- available against a governmental entity. In this case, however,
- the court noted, the government had never accepted the property
- and the adverse possession was not against the Town of Charleston
- but against the original developer of the lots.
-
-
- _Russell U. Farrell, Jr., v. Robert E. Phillips_,
- CSA No. 293, Sept. Term 1992. Filed Nov. 30, 1992.
- Opinion by Moylan, J. *Published*
-
-
- -- Matt Rosenblatt
- (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- "Fatti maschii, parole femine"
- (Manly deeds, womanly words)
- -- motto on the Great Seal of Maryland
-