Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Adverse Possession and Land Theft. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 11 page paper discusses the following statement. "Title by adverse possession serves a useful purpose when it protects innocent encroachment by one neighbour on another's land; it also rewards land stealing. A known squatter may find it easier to prove his claim than an innocent intruder". The paper is written with reference to English law and cites both case law and statutes. The bibliography cites 7 sources.
Page Count:
11 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TElandadverse.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
through the documentary transfer of the title from an existing owner to the new owner. However, this is not the only way that title to land can be gained. It
has been argued that those who seek to use this act may be benefited to a greater extent than the innocent due to the way in which this concept manifests
in practice. is where one individual that has possession of a property under any title, and another claims to be the "rightful owner under a different title, the possession of
the former is said to be under adverse possession" (Ivamy, 2000;10). If the original owner does not assert their ownership, they may be barred form this in the future.
Under the Limitation Act where a rightful owner failed to assert their claim, usually within twelve years, ownership passes, this is seen in
cases such as Buckinghamshire CC v. Moran [1990] Ch 623 (Gravells, 1999). The barring of the title owner to take any a specified period of time to evict the
occupant of the land means that they are then denied any way of asserting their title over the land. For the means for the occupant of the land that they
have a possession that "becomes impregnable, giving him a title that is superior to all others" (Nourse LJ in Buckinghamshire CC v. Moran) (Gravells, 1999).
In this case a council had purchased land in 1955. This was initially purchased to facilitate a road diversion that had been proposed. In 1967 the owners of
a property neighbouring the bought, but undeveloped land, incorporated the land into their own land. In 1971 a purchaser, who was the defendant in the case purchased the property "together
...