Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Adverse Possession

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Adverse PossessionQuestion 1 of 20

A church owned a large, wooded parcel of land adjacent to its main building. For 25 years, a woman who lived next door maintained a garden on a 500-square-foot patch of the church's land, believing it was part of her own property. The garden was visible from the road. The church's leadership was aware of the garden but never objected, as they believed it beautified the area and viewed the woman as a good neighbor. The jurisdiction's statutory period for adverse possession is 20 years. The church has now decided to sell the parcel and has asked the woman to abandon the garden. The woman refuses, claiming title by adverse possession.

What is the church's best argument against the woman's claim of adverse possession? Select one.

The woman's possession was not hostile because she believed the land was her own.

The church's passive acquiescence to the garden constituted implied permission, defeating the hostility element.

The woman did not pay property taxes on the disputed patch of land.

Property owned by a religious organization cannot be adversely possessed.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Adverse Possession

Practice Adverse Possession in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Adverse Possession, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

What is the church's best argument against the woman's claim of adverse possession? Select one.

The woman's possession was not hostile because she believed the land was her own.
The church's passive acquiescence to the garden constituted implied permission, defeating the hostility element. (correct answer)
The woman did not pay property taxes on the disputed patch of land.
Property owned by a religious organization cannot be adversely possessed.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. A key element of adverse possession is that the possession must be hostile, meaning without the owner's consent. While the woman's subjective belief is irrelevant in most jurisdictions (which use an objective test for hostility), the owner's state of mind is relevant to permission. Here, the church's leadership was aware of the use and made a conscious decision not to object because they approved of it. This can be construed as implied permission or acquiescence, which negates the hostility requirement. If the use is permissive, it cannot ripen into title by adverse possession. (A) is incorrect because most jurisdictions follow an objective standard for hostility, meaning the possessor's subjective belief (good faith or bad faith) is irrelevant. Possession inconsistent with the true owner's rights is sufficient. (C) is incorrect because payment of taxes is only required for adverse possession in a minority of jurisdictions and is not a standard common law element. (D) is incorrect because, while government property is generally immune from adverse possession, property owned by private religious organizations is typically not, unless a specific statute provides otherwise.

Question 2

You are representing a client who wants to purchase a farm. The title search reveals a potential issue. The current seller acquired the farm 12 years ago. The seller's predecessor openly and continuously farmed the property for 6 years before selling to the current seller. However, before the predecessor began farming, there was a one-year period where a third party, unrelated to either the predecessor or the current seller, occupied the farm without permission before being forcibly removed by the predecessor. The record owner has been absent for over 30 years. The jurisdiction's statutory period for adverse possession is 20 years.

What is the primary legal concern you should advise your client about regarding the seller's claim of title by adverse possession? Select one.

The seller has only been in possession for 12 years, which is less than the 20-year statutory period.
The one-year occupation by the unrelated third party may have broken the chain of possession required for tacking. (correct answer)
The predecessor's forcible removal of the third party demonstrates a lack of good faith, which is required for adverse possession.
The seller cannot establish title through adverse possession without a court judgment quieting title.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This question tests the concept of tacking and privity. For an adverse possessor to tack their period of possession onto a predecessor's, there must be privity between them (a non-hostile transfer of possession). The combined possession of the seller (12 years) and their direct predecessor (6 years) is 18 years. To reach the 20-year requirement, they might need to tack the time of an earlier possessor. However, the predecessor's entry involved forcibly removing a third party. This indicates a lack of privity between the predecessor and the third party. Therefore, the predecessor cannot tack the third party's one year of possession. The total provable period of continuous adverse possession is only 18 years (6 + 12), which is short of the 20-year requirement. This break in the chain of privity is the primary legal concern. (A) is incorrect because it ignores the possibility of tacking the predecessor's 6 years. (C) is incorrect because most jurisdictions use an objective test for hostility, and good faith is not required. (D) is incorrect because title by adverse possession vests automatically once the elements are met for the statutory period; a court judgment merely confirms this, it does not create it.

Question 3

A woman owned a 10-acre parcel of land. Twelve years ago, an adverse possessor entered the parcel and began farming a two-acre section. The adverse possessor built a fence around the two-acre section. After eight years of continuous farming, the adverse possessor sold his interest to a buyer via a written contract, and the buyer immediately took possession and continued farming. The woman, who was legally sane at all times, discovered the buyer on the property four years after the buyer took possession and filed an ejectment action. The statutory period for adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 15 years.

In the ejectment action, what is the woman's best argument that the buyer has not acquired title by adverse possession? Select one.

The buyer has only possessed the property for four years, which is less than the 15-year statutory period.
The transfer of possession from the original adverse possessor to the buyer was not accomplished by a formal deed.
The buyer's possession cannot be tacked to the prior possessor's period because the total time is only 12 years. (correct answer)
The original adverse possessor did not occupy the entire 10-acre parcel, only a two-acre portion of it.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. To acquire title by adverse possession, the possession must be continuous for the full statutory period. An adverse possessor can 'tack' their period of possession onto that of a predecessor, but only if they are in privity. Here, the original adverse possessor held the land for eight years, and the buyer held it for four years. The total period of adverse possession is 12 years (8 + 4). Since the jurisdiction's statutory period is 15 years, the total time is insufficient to establish adverse possession. This is the most direct and winning argument for the woman. (A) is incorrect because it ignores the principle of tacking. The buyer can add the original adverse possessor's time if there is privity. (B) is incorrect because privity for tacking can be established by any non-hostile transfer of possession, including a written contract, inheritance, or even an oral transfer. A formal deed is not required. (D) is incorrect because an adverse possessor without color of title only acquires the portion of the land they actually possess. This fact explains the scope of the claim but does not defeat the claim to the two acres if the time requirement were met.

Question 4

An individual held a defective deed to a 50-acre parcel of land known as Greenacre. The deed was properly recorded. The individual moved onto Greenacre and built a house on a five-acre portion, clearing and landscaping only that portion. The individual never set foot on the remaining 45 acres, which were wild and undeveloped. The true owner of Greenacre never visited the property. The individual remained in exclusive possession of the five-acre portion for the entire 20-year statutory period required for adverse possession. The individual has now brought an action to quiet title to all 50 acres of Greenacre.

To what portion of Greenacre, if any, will the individual likely acquire title? Select one.

None, because the deed was defective, so the individual never had valid title to any part of the property.
Only the five acres the individual actually possessed, because that is the extent of the individual's physical occupation.
The full 50 acres, because the individual's actual possession of a portion of the land gives constructive possession of the whole tract described in the defective deed. (correct answer)
The full 50 acres, but only if the individual can prove they paid property taxes on the entire parcel for the statutory period.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This question tests the doctrine of constructive adverse possession under color of title. When an adverse possessor enters property under a written instrument that purports to convey title but is defective (color of title), and they actually possess a portion of the property described in the instrument, they are deemed to be in constructive possession of the entire property described in that instrument. Here, the individual had a defective deed to the 50-acre parcel and actually possessed five acres. This actual possession extends constructively to the boundaries of the parcel described in the deed, provided the parcel is a unitary tract and the true owner is not in possession of any part. Therefore, the individual will likely acquire title to the full 50 acres. (A) is incorrect because the entire doctrine of adverse possession operates to grant title to someone who does not have it. (B) is incorrect because it describes the rule for adverse possession without color of title. (D) is incorrect because while some jurisdictions require payment of taxes as an element of adverse possession, it is not a universal requirement and is not the dispositive factor for the doctrine of constructive possession under color of title.

Question 5

A city owned a vacant lot that it intended to use for a future park. Twenty-two years ago, an individual, unaware that the lot was city property, fenced it in and began using it as a private yard. The individual's use was open, notorious, and continuous for the entire period. The city's parks department was understaffed and never noticed the encroachment. The city has now discovered the use and ordered the individual to vacate. The jurisdiction has a 20-year statute of limitations for adverse possession.

In a quiet title action brought by the individual, who is likely to prevail? Select one.

The city, because government-owned land held for a public purpose generally cannot be acquired by adverse possession. (correct answer)
The individual, because the city's failure to monitor its property constitutes abandonment.
The individual, because all common law elements of adverse possession have been met for the statutory period.
The city, because the individual's good faith mistake about ownership prevents the possession from being hostile.

Explanation: When you encounter adverse possession questions involving government property, the key principle to remember is that most jurisdictions protect public lands from private acquisition through adverse possession, especially when the land is held for public purposes. Answer A is correct because government-owned property designated for public use (like a future park) is generally immune from adverse possession claims. This rule exists to protect the public interest and prevent private individuals from acquiring land that serves community needs. Courts recognize that allowing adverse possession of public lands would undermine governmental planning and deprive citizens of public resources. Answer B is wrong because the city's failure to monitor the property doesn't constitute legal abandonment. Abandonment requires an intentional relinquishment of rights, not mere neglect or oversight due to understaffing. The city maintained its intent to use the land for a park. Answer C incorrectly assumes that meeting common law adverse possession elements automatically grants title. While the individual's use was indeed open, notorious, and continuous for over 20 years, this analysis ignores the crucial legal barrier that protects public property from adverse possession. Answer D misunderstands the "hostility" requirement. In adverse possession, "hostile" simply means without the owner's permission—it doesn't require bad faith or knowledge of trespassing. The individual's good faith mistake about ownership doesn't prevent hostility. Remember this key rule: Public property held for governmental or public purposes is typically exempt from adverse possession, regardless of how long the private use continues or whether all other elements are satisfied.

Question 6

A testator devised a large parcel of land "to my daughter for life, then to my grandson." After the testator's death, the daughter took possession. Ten years later, an adverse possessor entered the land, and the daughter did nothing to remove him. The adverse possessor remained in open, hostile, and continuous possession for 25 years. The daughter then died. One year after the daughter's death, the grandson discovered the adverse possessor and filed an ejectment action. The jurisdiction's statute of limitations for adverse possession is 20 years.

In the grandson's ejectment action, who will prevail? Select one.

The adverse possessor, because he possessed the land for more than the 20-year statutory period.
The adverse possessor, because the daughter's failure to eject him is binding on the grandson.
The grandson, because an adverse possessor cannot acquire title against a future interest holder.
The grandson, because the statute of limitations did not begin to run against his remainder interest until the daughter's death. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter adverse possession questions involving future interests, focus on when the statute of limitations begins running against each interest holder. The key principle is that adverse possession only runs against parties who have the current right to possess the property. In this case, the daughter held a life estate with the right to current possession, while the grandson held a remainder interest that would only become possessory upon her death. Since the adverse possessor entered during the daughter's lifetime, the 20-year statute began running against her life estate immediately. However, the statute could not begin running against the grandson's remainder interest until he gained the right to possession—which occurred only when the daughter died. At that point, the grandson had one year to discover and eject the adverse possessor, which he did. Choice A incorrectly assumes the 25-year total possession period matters, but the relevant timeframe is measured separately against each interest. Choice B is wrong because the daughter's inaction regarding her life estate doesn't bind the grandson regarding his remainder—these are separate interests with different limitation periods. Choice C overstates the protection for future interests; adverse possession can affect remainders, but only after the remainder becomes possessory. The correct answer is D because adverse possession statutes run separately against each estate, and the grandson's remainder interest was not subject to adverse possession until the daughter's death triggered his right to possession. Study tip: Remember that adverse possession clocks reset when future interests become possessory. Each estate gets its own limitation period starting from when possession rights vest.

Question 7

A woman held title to a parcel of land. In 2002, a man entered the property and began to possess it adversely. In 2005, the woman was convicted of a felony and sentenced to ten years in prison. She was released in 2015. In 2023, the woman filed suit to eject the man, who had been in continuous possession since 2002. The jurisdiction has a 20-year statute of limitations for adverse possession and a disability statute that provides that if the owner is under a disability (including imprisonment) at the time the cause of action accrues, the statute of limitations is tolled until the disability is removed.

Who is likely to prevail in the ejectment action? Select one.

The woman, because her imprisonment from 2005 to 2015 constituted a disability that tolled the statute of limitations.
The woman, because the statute of limitations was tolled and she filed suit within 20 years of her release from prison.
The man, because imprisonment is not a recognized disability for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations.
The man, because the woman's disability of imprisonment arose after his adverse possession began. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests adverse possession and disability tolling statutes, specifically when disabilities can pause the statute of limitations clock. The critical issue is the timing of when the disability arises relative to when the adverse possession begins. For a disability to toll the statute of limitations in adverse possession cases, the disability must exist at the time the cause of action accrues—that is, when the adverse possession begins. Here, the man started his adverse possession in 2002, but the woman's imprisonment didn't begin until 2005. Since her disability arose three years after the adverse possession commenced, the tolling provision doesn't apply. Answer D correctly identifies this timing issue: the woman's imprisonment occurred after the man's adverse possession began, so it cannot toll the statute of limitations. The 20-year clock started running in 2002 and continued uninterrupted. By 2022, the man would have satisfied the adverse possession requirements, making the woman's 2023 lawsuit too late. Answer A incorrectly assumes that any disability during the limitations period can provide tolling. Answer B makes the same error, wrongly calculating that the woman has 20 years from her 2015 release (which would give her until 2035). Answer C is factually wrong—the jurisdiction explicitly recognizes imprisonment as a disability. Remember this timing rule for adverse possession: disabilities only toll the statute if they exist when the adverse possession begins, not if they arise later. This prevents landowners from gaining extra time based on post-commencement circumstances beyond their control.

Question 8

In the ejectment action, what is the woman's best argument that the buyer has not acquired title by adverse possession? Select one.

The buyer has only possessed the property for four years, which is less than the 15-year statutory period.
The transfer of possession from the original adverse possessor to the buyer was not accomplished by a formal deed.
The buyer's possession cannot be tacked to the prior possessor's period because the total time is only 12 years. (correct answer)
The original adverse possessor did not occupy the entire 10-acre parcel, only a two-acre portion of it.

Question 9

In the grandson's ejectment action, who will prevail? Select one.

The adverse possessor, because he possessed the land for more than the 20-year statutory period.
The adverse possessor, because the daughter's failure to eject him is binding on the grandson.
The grandson, because an adverse possessor cannot acquire title against a future interest holder.
The grandson, because the statute of limitations did not begin to run against his remainder interest until the daughter's death. (correct answer)

Question 10

A farmer owned a large tract of land. Twenty years ago, she built a fence along what she believed in good faith was the boundary with her neighbor's property. In reality, the fence enclosed a five-foot-wide strip of the neighbor's land. The farmer has used the strip as part of her pasture ever since. The neighbor never objected, also believing the fence was on the correct boundary. The neighbor recently sold his property to a buyer, who conducted a survey and discovered the encroachment. The jurisdiction has a 15-year statute of limitations for adverse possession and follows the modern, objective standard for hostility.

In a lawsuit between the farmer and the buyer, who has superior title to the five-foot strip? Select one.

The buyer, because the farmer's possession was based on a good faith mistake and therefore lacked the required hostile intent.
The buyer, because possession under a mistaken belief of ownership can never be adverse.
The farmer, but only if she can prove she intended to claim the land even if she knew it was not hers.
The farmer, because her possession and use of the strip was actual, open, continuous, and inconsistent with the neighbor's ownership for the statutory period. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter an adverse possession question, focus on the five elements: actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and continuous possession that is hostile to the true owner's interests for the statutory period. The farmer successfully acquired title to the strip through adverse possession. Her use of the land was actual (she physically occupied it as pasture), open and notorious (the fence made her claim visible), exclusive (she alone used it), and continuous for twenty years—exceeding the 15-year statutory requirement. Most importantly, her possession was "hostile" under the modern objective standard, which doesn't require ill intent but simply asks whether the possessor used the land in a way inconsistent with the true owner's rights. By fencing and using the strip as her own, the farmer's actions were hostile regardless of her good faith mistake about the boundary. Answer choice A incorrectly suggests that good faith mistakes negate hostility—this reflects the older minority rule that required conscious wrongdoing. Answer B is wrong because the modern trend explicitly allows adverse possession based on mistaken boundary disputes, recognizing these are common scenarios where the doctrine serves its purpose. Answer C describes the old "aggressive trespasser" test requiring intent to take land even if not yours, but most jurisdictions have abandoned this difficult-to-prove subjective standard. The correct answer is D because it identifies all the elements met under the modern objective approach. Study tip: Remember that most jurisdictions follow the objective standard for hostility—focus on the possessor's actions, not their mental state or good/bad faith.

Question 11

For 18 years, a company has maintained an underground pipeline that runs beneath a large, undeveloped parcel of land owned by a private individual. The pipeline is not visible from the surface, and there are no surface markers indicating its presence. The company never obtained an easement from the landowner. The company has continuously used the pipeline to transport natural gas. The landowner recently discovered the pipeline's existence while preparing to excavate the property. The jurisdiction's statutory period for acquiring a prescriptive easement is 15 years.

Has the company acquired a prescriptive easement for the pipeline? Select one.

Yes, because the use was continuous for the statutory period and was adverse to the landowner's interest.
Yes, because commercial necessity for the pipeline creates a presumption of a prescriptive right.
No, because the underground pipeline was not an open and notorious use of the land. (correct answer)
No, because the landowner never gave permission for the pipeline's installation.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The elements for acquiring a prescriptive easement are analogous to those for adverse possession: the use must be open and notorious, adverse, and continuous for the statutory period. A key element is that the use must be 'open and notorious' to put the true owner on notice of the adverse claim. An underground utility line with no surface manifestations is generally not considered open and notorious. The owner would have no reasonable way of discovering the adverse use. Because the use was hidden, the company cannot satisfy this element and has not acquired a prescriptive easement. (A) is incorrect because it ignores the open and notorious requirement. (B) is incorrect because there is no doctrine of 'commercial necessity' that creates prescriptive rights; this sounds like easement by necessity, which has different requirements. (D) is incorrect because lack of permission is a requirement for, not a defense against, a prescriptive easement claim; it establishes the 'adverse' or 'hostile' element.

Question 12

In 1995, a landowner leased a parcel of rural land to a tenant for a term of 10 years. The lease expired in 2005, but the tenant remained in possession. The tenant stopped paying rent and posted signs at the entrance declaring the property to be his own. The landowner lived abroad and never communicated with the tenant after the lease expired. In 2022, the landowner returned and discovered the tenant still on the property. The landowner filed an action for ejectment. The jurisdiction has a 15-year statutory period for adverse possession.

In the ejectment action, who is likely to prevail? Select one.

The landowner, because a tenant's possession can never be adverse to their landlord.
The landowner, because the tenant's possession was not hostile until the lease expired in 2005, and 15 years have not yet passed since then.
The tenant, because his possession became adverse when the lease expired in 2005, and more than 15 years have passed since that time. (correct answer)
The tenant, because his possession has been continuous for over 25 years, far exceeding the statutory period.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. A tenant's possession is permissive and not adverse to the landlord. However, if a tenant holds over after a lease expires and commits acts that repudiate the landlord-tenant relationship, the possession can become adverse. Here, the tenant stopped paying rent and posted signs claiming ownership. These acts were sufficient to put the landowner on notice that the possession had become hostile. The hostility began when the lease expired in 2005 and the tenant repudiated the lease terms. The landowner filed suit in 2022, which is 17 years later. Since the statutory period is 15 years, the tenant has acquired title by adverse possession. (A) is incorrect because a holdover tenant can become an adverse possessor by clearly repudiating the lease. (B) incorrectly calculates the time; from 2005 to 2022 is 17 years, which is more than the 15-year requirement. (D) is incorrect because it wrongly calculates the adverse possession period from the start of the lease in 1995; the first 10 years were permissive.

Question 13

A man owned two adjacent lots, Lot 1 and Lot 2. He built a house on Lot 1 and installed a driveway that encroached by two feet onto Lot 2. Several years later, the man sold Lot 1 to a buyer, and the deed described only Lot 1. The buyer continued to use the full driveway. Two years after that, the man sold Lot 2 to a different purchaser. Eighteen years after the sale of Lot 2, the purchaser had a survey done and discovered the encroachment. The purchaser demanded that the buyer of Lot 1 remove the encroaching portion of the driveway. The jurisdiction has a 20-year statute of limitations for adverse possession.

What is the buyer of Lot 1's best defense against the purchaser's demand? Select one.

Adverse possession, because the buyer and the man together have used the driveway for more than 20 years.
Adverse possession, because the buyer has used the driveway for 20 years since purchasing Lot 1.
Easement by necessity, because the buyer's house requires access via the driveway.
Easement by prior existing use, because the use was apparent and continuous when the lots were severed. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question blends adverse possession with easements to create a challenging scenario. The best defense is an easement by prior existing use (or quasi-easement). This easement is created when a common owner uses one part of their land to benefit another (a quasi-easement), the use is apparent and continuous, and its continuation is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant parcel after severance. Here, the man (common owner) used the driveway on Lot 2 to benefit Lot 1. The use was apparent and continuous. When he sold Lot 1, an easement was likely implied by law. (A) is incorrect because the man's use of his own property (Lot 2) cannot be adverse. The period of adverse possession could only begin when Lot 2 was sold to the purchaser, severing the common ownership. Only 18 years have passed since that time, which is less than the 20-year statutory period. (B) is incorrect for the same reason; the buyer has only adversely possessed for 18 years against the purchaser of Lot 2. (C) is incorrect because an easement by necessity requires strict necessity (i.e., the property would be landlocked), which is not indicated here; other access might be possible, even if less convenient.

Question 14

An adverse possessor took possession of a property in 2000. In 2010, the adverse possessor died, leaving a will that devised all her property to her son. The son immediately took possession of the property and continued the adverse use. In 2012, the original record owner died, leaving a will that devised all his property to his daughter, who was 10 years old at the time. In 2021, the daughter, now 19, filed a suit to eject the son. The jurisdiction has a 15-year statute of limitations for adverse possession, and infancy is a recognized disability.

Who has the superior claim to the property? Select one.

The son, because the combined possession of him and his mother exceeds 15 years.
The son, because the daughter's disability did not exist when the adverse possession began in 2000. (correct answer)
The daughter, because her infancy at the time she inherited the property tolled the statute of limitations.
The daughter, because an adverse possession claim cannot run against a minor.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This is a multi-step problem involving both tacking and disabilities. First, the son can tack his mother's period of possession (2000-2010) because there is privity through the will. Their combined possession starting in 2000 exceeded the 15-year period by 2015. Second, the disability rule only applies if the disability exists in the owner at the time the cause of action accrues. The adverse possession began in 2000 against the original record owner, who was not disabled. The daughter's disability (infancy) did not arise until she inherited the property in 2012, well after the adverse possession had started. A disability that arises after the adverse possession has commenced does not toll the statute. Therefore, the 15-year period ran uninterrupted from 2000 to 2015, at which point title vested in the son. (A) is a correct statement, but (B) provides the more complete legal reasoning by addressing the disability issue, which is the key legal question. (C) and (D) are incorrect because they misstate the disability rule; the disability must exist at the inception of the adverse possession.

Question 15

In a jurisdiction with a 10-year statute of limitations for adverse possession, a claimant took possession of a parcel of land in 2010. In 2018, the true owner entered the property, confronted the claimant, and said, "This is my land, and I'll be back with the sheriff to remove you." The true owner then left and took no further action until filing an ejectment suit in 2021. The claimant remained in continuous possession from 2010 until 2021.

Has the claimant acquired title by adverse possession? Select one.

Yes, because the owner's single act of confronting the claimant was insufficient to interrupt the period of possession. (correct answer)
Yes, because the owner failed to file suit within the 10-year statutory period that started in 2010.
No, because the owner's entry and confrontation in 2018 interrupted the continuity of possession.
No, because the owner's assertion of title tolled the running of the statute of limitations.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. To interrupt the continuity of adverse possession, the true owner must effectively reassert their dominion. Merely making an oral claim or a brief entry is generally insufficient. The owner must retake possession in a meaningful way or, more definitively, file a lawsuit for ejectment or trespass before the statutory period has run. Here, the owner's verbal threat and brief presence in 2018 did not amount to a legal interruption of the adverse possession. The claimant's possession remained continuous. Because the owner did not file suit until 2021, more than 10 years after the claimant's entry in 2010, the claimant's claim has ripened into title. (B) is a correct outcome but for a less precise reason; the key is that the possession was not interrupted. (C) is incorrect because the owner's actions were not sufficient to interrupt possession. (D) is incorrect because a mere assertion of title does not toll the statute; legal action is required.

Question 16

A brother and sister inherited a house as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The brother lived in the house, while the sister lived in a different city. For 25 years, the brother lived in the house exclusively, paid all property taxes, and handled all maintenance and repairs. The sister never visited or contributed to the expenses, but she and the brother exchanged friendly holiday cards every year. The brother never told the sister she could not visit or use the house. The brother has now died, devising all his property to his son. The sister claims sole ownership of the house. The jurisdiction's statutory period for adverse possession is 20 years.

Who has the superior claim to the house? Select one.

The sister, because a cotenant cannot adversely possess against another cotenant without an ouster. (correct answer)
The son, because the brother's payment of taxes and maintenance severed the joint tenancy, creating a tenancy in common.
The son, because the brother acquired the sister's interest through adverse possession by his exclusive use for over 20 years.
The sister, because joint tenants cannot bring adverse possession claims against each other as a matter of law.

Explanation: When you encounter a property law question involving cotenants and adverse possession, focus on the fundamental requirement of "ouster" - one cotenant must clearly exclude the other from the property. In joint tenancy relationships, each cotenant has an equal right to possess and use the entire property. The brother's exclusive occupation for 25 years, while paying all expenses, doesn't automatically create adverse possession against his sister. Crucially, the brother never told his sister she couldn't visit or use the house, and they maintained friendly contact through holiday cards. Without an explicit denial of the sister's rights or hostile acts that would put her on notice that her interest was being challenged, there's no ouster. Option A correctly identifies that adverse possession requires ouster between cotenants - the brother's actions, while exclusive, weren't hostile toward his sister's ownership rights. Option B incorrectly suggests that paying taxes and maintenance severs a joint tenancy; these actions alone don't destroy the joint tenancy structure. Option C misapplies adverse possession law by ignoring the ouster requirement - exclusive use without hostility isn't sufficient between cotenants. Option D overstates the rule; while adverse possession between joint tenants is difficult, it's not impossible as a matter of law - it simply requires clear ouster. Since the joint tenancy was never severed and no ouster occurred, the sister's right of survivorship remains intact, giving her sole ownership upon the brother's death. Study tip: Remember the acronym "OCEAN" for adverse possession: Open, Continuous, Exclusive, Adverse, and Notorious. Between cotenants, focus especially on whether the possession was truly "adverse" through ouster.

Question 17

Has the claimant acquired title by adverse possession? Select one.

Yes, because the owner's single act of confronting the claimant was insufficient to interrupt the period of possession. (correct answer)
Yes, because the owner failed to file suit within the 10-year statutory period that started in 2010.
No, because the owner's entry and confrontation in 2018 interrupted the continuity of possession.
No, because the owner's assertion of title tolled the running of the statute of limitations.

Question 18

Has the company acquired a prescriptive easement for the pipeline? Select one.

Yes, because the use was continuous for the statutory period and was adverse to the landowner's interest.
Yes, because commercial necessity for the pipeline creates a presumption of a prescriptive right.
No, because the underground pipeline was not an open and notorious use of the land. (correct answer)
No, because the landowner never gave permission for the pipeline's installation.

Question 19

In 2000, a man asked his neighbor for permission to build a shed that would slightly encroach on the neighbor's property. The neighbor orally agreed. The man built the shed, which extended five feet onto the neighbor's land. In 2005, the neighbor sold her property to a buyer. The buyer was unaware of the oral agreement. In 2010, the man sold his property to a purchaser, conveying his interest in the shed. The purchaser continued to use the shed. In 2023, the buyer discovered the encroachment via a survey and demanded the purchaser remove the shed. The jurisdiction's statutory period for adverse possession is 15 years.

Assuming the purchaser brings a quiet title action, what is the most likely outcome? Select one.

The purchaser will win, because possession was continuous for more than 15 years through tacking.
The purchaser will lose, because the original possession was permissive and the character of the possession never changed.
The purchaser will win, because the oral permission was revoked when the neighbor sold the property to the buyer in 2005. (correct answer)
The purchaser will lose, because the oral agreement was not in writing and thus violated the Statute of Frauds.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Possession that begins with permission is not adverse or hostile. For the clock to start running for adverse possession, the permissive nature must be repudiated or revoked. Here, the original possession was permissive. However, when the neighbor sold her property to the buyer in 2005, the permission, which was a mere license, was revoked by operation of law. At that point, the man's possession of the shed's location became hostile. The statutory period began to run in 2005. The man and his successor, the purchaser, have maintained hostile possession since 2005. As the suit was initiated in 2023, more than 15 years (2005 to 2023 is 18 years) have passed. (A) is incorrect because it fails to identify when the possession became adverse; the clock did not start in 2000. (B) is incorrect because the character of the possession did change from permissive to hostile upon the sale of the servient property. (D) is incorrect because the Statute of Frauds relates to the enforceability of contracts for the sale of land, not the creation of a license, which can be oral. The issue here is adverse possession, not contract enforcement.

Question 20

A record owner held title to a large tract of land. Sixteen years ago, an adverse possessor entered the land and began to openly farm it. Three years after the adverse possessor's entry, the record owner was declared legally incompetent by a court and was placed under a guardianship. The record owner remained incompetent. Thirteen years later (16 years after the initial entry), the guardian of the record owner filed suit to eject the adverse possessor. The jurisdiction has a 15-year statute of limitations for adverse possession and a disability statute that tolls the period during the owner's disability.

What is the likely outcome of the ejectment suit? Select one.

The adverse possessor wins, because the statutory period of 15 years has run. (correct answer)
The adverse possessor wins, because a guardianship does not count as a disability for tolling purposes.
The record owner wins, because the owner's incompetence tolled the statute of limitations.
The record owner wins, because a disability arising at any time during the possession period will toll the statute.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. For an owner's disability to toll the statute of limitations for adverse possession, the disability must exist at the time the cause of action accrued, which is at the inception of the adverse possession. In this case, the adverse possession began 16 years ago. The record owner became legally incompetent three years after the entry. Because the disability did not exist when the adverse possession started, it does not toll the statute. The 15-year statutory period has run, so the adverse possessor has acquired title. (B) is incorrect because legal incompetence is a qualifying disability. (C) is incorrect because, as explained, the disability did not exist at the inception of the adverse possession. (D) is incorrect because it states the wrong rule; the disability must exist when the adverse possession begins, not arise at any time during the period.