Celebrity Couple Problem.

Authors Avatar

Adverse Possession Seminar

Celebrity Couple Problem Question

In order to accurately asses the legal standing of the parties involved in this scenario we must look at the principles of adverse possession and their effect on the facts of this particular case.

Adverse possession can be defined, as any possession that has been taken that is not consistent to the title of the true owner.

Adverse possession can lead to the legal title of the true owner being voided and passed to the squatter where they will acquire a legal title through being in possession.

There are a number of factors, which have to be satisfied in relation to a legitimate claim for adverse possession and theses will be discussed in relation to the facts of the case in hand.

The squatter must establish possession over a period of 12 years; this possession must be continuous over that period. The couple in question purchased and moved into the house in 1990. If we assume that this property was and has been their permanent place of residence since the time of purchase then they will have fulfilled the necessary time period of 12 years. However there are two points we need to bear in mind, firstly under the recently proposed revisions to the legislation regarding adverse possession the couple would need to apply for possession after 10 years at which point the current true owners would be notified of the intentions of the possessions and be given the chance to act accordingly. Secondly in this scenario the couple are described as a “celebrity couple…intending to use the property as an informal hide away.” If you were representing the true owners you may wish to research the permanence of the residency. Indeed whether or not this was in effect a holiday home only visited as a temporary retreat in between celebrity duties, in which case the entitlement would be void.

Join now!

Firstly the owner of the property in question has to be dispossessed or must have discontinued his possession. Wallis Catton Bay Holiday Camp v Shell-Mex and BP Ltd (1975.) In our scenario the elderly couple are clearly not in occupation of the pool house, pool, or the tennis court. The fact they are termed as “disused” would lead you to believe they have not been taken care of in terms of up keep and or regular use. However there is an exception that the true owner must have the physical/ mental ability to posses the land and to find out whether ...

This is a preview of the whole essay