Case Law Summaries

Ames v. Township of Jefferson

• Opinion Date: May 6, 2003
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

ADVERSE POSSESSION; MUNICIPALITIES—Intentional hostility is not required to prove that an adverse use is notorious and the public’s use of a private strip of land as a roadway qualifies as such; therefore, a municipality can assert rights by way of adverse possession on that basis and is not limited to taking the strip of land by way of eminent domain.

A municipality filed a claim of adverse possession against property owners, claiming that a public road existed across the owners’ property and that the municipality had obtained title to that strip of property. It further claimed that the owners were aware of the road when they purchased their property and that the municipality paved and maintained the strip as a public roadway. The municipality’s theory was that, since the twenty year statutory period for adverse possession had passed, the municipality had a prescriptive easement for the use of the strip. The owners responded that the municipality’s use was not open and notorious for the required twenty years. They argued that they did not object to the use of the strip as a public trail, but only objected when the strip was later paved as a public roadway. Therefore, they claimed the twenty year period for adverse possession began to run when the roadway was paved, not when it was initially used as a public trail. The lower court disagreed, noting that intentional hostility by the user is not required to prove that a use was notorious. It found that the public’s use of the strip as a roadway for more than twenty years after the owners purchased their properties satisfied the requirements for a prescriptive easement. The owners then claimed that the municipality had no right to acquire title to the strip through adverse possession, rather, it had to commence condemnation proceedings. They argued they were entitled to inverse condemnation damages, because the use of the strip as a roadway was a taking. The lower court disagreed, holding that a municipality can acquire title to property either by way of a taking or through adverse possession. Even if the acquisition of title to the roadway was by way of a taking and not by adverse possession, the owners were required to bring their actions for damages within six years. The lower court found that the owners failed to bring an action within that six year period. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.