• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Celebrity Couple Problem.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

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.1 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. ...read more.

Middle

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 or the land is being possessed. Here it is stated that the true owners are old, housebound and their property is a large country estate. One could therefore argue that due to their physical limitation they were unable to occupy their land or find out if their property was being adversely possessed. The counter argument to this would be a large country estate usually would have a significant number of staff eg. Grounds men/gardeners who would be able to carry out the necessary work or ascertain if squatters were present. There must be an intention to "exclude the owner as well as other people" Powel v McFarlane (1977.) ...read more.

Conclusion

(Here the celebrity couple may wish to reiterate their argument of future intentions and preparation of the land. Wallis Catton Bay Holiday Camp v Shell-Mex and BP Ltd (1975.)Farming of land deemed to be sufficient. Secondly the act of excluding the owner as well as other people may be seen as unfulfilled. The access to this field was at no point cut off. The fact the field is bordered on one edge by a public road with a "discontinuous hedge," means it is/was not, at any point, exclusive of the true owner or any other person who wishes to wander through a gap In the hedge and therefore no right can be acquired. It would be for the judge to decide upon the points of contention raised in the arguments above and to take into consideration the abilities, action and intention of each of the parties whether or not adverse possession would be granted in each of the two cases. 1 The law of real Property D Bell pp337 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Land Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Land Law essays

  1. The Land Registration Act 2002 heralds major changes to the law and procedures regarding ...

    In addition, the idea of trust on registered land is no more applicable under this new scheme as title will no longer be extinguished through possession[75] and will only be transferred when the register is changed.[76] These changes seem to be appropriate as it now makes it impossible for a sensible registered proprietor to be dispossessed without his knowledge.

  2. Land Law Problem Question; Adverse Possession, Easements, Covenants and Overriding Interests.

    Essentially this means that Nigel must have acted in good faith, something of value (not necessarily money) must have been given in consideration for the exchange of the legal (as opposed to equitable) estate. The notion of being means the purchaser must be without notice of the equitable rights.

  1. Leasehold problem case. In 2005 Miranda sublet the premises for a term of ...

    130 - Dist. Court, ED Pennsylvania 1986 Vermilya-Brown Co. v. Connell, 335 US 377 - Supreme Court 1948 Cheung v. US, 213 F. 3d 82 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2000 Long Term Capital Holdings v. US, 330 F.

  2. Tenancy case question. The problem faced by Linda is whether or not Terry, Tina ...

    The other question of where it was unknown to Linda that Terry and Tina were not just friends but a couple will not be relevant in considering the fact that they were joint tenants. Linda may have tried to grant them a separate licence each for each bedroom, and the

  1. Co-ownership on Family Home

    place; it can be inferred from surrounding circumstances that there was a conversation agreeing to share the property as seen in Springette v Defoe15. Lord Bridge had also accepted that it is not easy to prove an oral agreement and such difficulties have been recognized by judges as seen in Hammond v Mitchell16 by Waite J.

  2. The Mirror Principle and the Land Act of 2002. Analysis and case problem ...

    A look at Schedule 1 and 3 of the same law reveals seven kind of unregistered interests that can override first registration: leasehold estates in land, 5 interests of persons in actual occupation, 6 easements and profits a prendre, 7 customary and public rights, 8 local land charges, 9 mines and minerals, 10 and other miscellaneous interests.

  1. This problem question deals with the law of adverse possession of land.

    of limitation can run.5 The result of land being adversely possessed for the entire period of limitation is that the original landowner's title is completely extinguished,6 putting the adverse possessor of the land in the position of having a possessory title which is good against the whole world.

  2. Land law problem question - access

    a grantee must be a definite person or body.[32]Besides, the right must be sufficiently definite, which must be capable of reasonably of exact description.[33] Lastly, the right must be within the general nature of rights capable of existing as easements.[34] This is unlikely to be a problem as rights of way are an established category of easement.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work