• 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...


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.


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.


(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. Property Law - Problem Question

    taking effect in possession, at a market price (s54(2) LPA 1925). Periodic tenancies, which will not necessarily last for longer than 3 years, have been included2. The lease must 'take effect in possession'; that is to say immediately (Long v Tower Hamlets LBC (1998)

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

    If Nigel does object then Mark's application will be rejected unless one of three exceptions apply; estoppel, a legal entitlement to the land or a boundary dispute. As there is no evidence of any of these exceptions, Mark's claim would likely be rejected.

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

    The unfairness arises as no effort has been made to balance the possible hardship between the squatter and the owner. There is no evidence that the hardship of the time-barred owner is ever safeguarded and the act is also found to apply more on forcible ejection than innocent possession.

  2. Co-ownership on Family Home

    Some cases prior to Rosset21 have suggested that the court could find a constructive trust if it thought fairness of the case demanded it or a constructive trust could be found if it accorded with the parties' intentions, but that these intentions could be inferred by the courts.

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

    13 If the actual occupant, however, failed to confirm his interest on the property he actually occupies when asked about it and a disposition subsequently takes place, the interest of that actual occupant does not become overriding and not protected.

  2. 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.

  1. Registration of land

    To add to this, LRA 2002 intends to add on the number of details which can be registered once the e-conveyancing system is up and running15. Hence, as stated in section 71 of Land Registration Act 200216, there is a duty of the people to ensure every unregistered right in a land should be registered to further improve the system.

  2. Land law problem question - access

    there has some connection between the right and the dominant (Moody v Steggles[17]; Platt v Crouch[18]; London and Blenheim Estate Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parks Ltd).[19] Without connection with the dominant land, a right is a pure and undefined recreational use may not be an easement[20] (Mounsey v Ismay[21]).Bones should

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